Opinion ID: 1537986
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Common Law Right of Allocution

Text: As originally recognized by the early common law, the right of allocution provided a defendant with a formal opportunity to disclose to the court, before it pronounced sentence, certain strictly defined legal impediments to sentencing: that the defendant had benefit of clergy, had obtained a pardon, or was insane, pregnant, or not the person named in the indictment. Because sentences for felonies were then rigidly mandated by law, and the trial judge, therefore, had no discretion in imposing sentence once the determination of guilt was made, allocutory pleas for mercy would have been unavailing and were not allowed. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 368-71 (1769); Barrett, Allocution, 9 Mo.L.Rev. 115, 120-24 (1944); Note, Procedural Due Process at Judicial Sentencing for Felony, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 821, 821-22, 832-33 (1968). At the time the right of allocution originated, a criminal defendant had no right to counsel and was incompetent to testify on his own behalf; thus, allocution was the defendant's only opportunity to address the court. Allocution was therefore viewed as an essential procedural right, and a court's failure to ask a defendant Do you know of any reason why judgment should not be pronounced upon you? was held to be reversible error, at least in capital cases. Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 304, 81 S.Ct. 653, 655, 5 L.Ed.2d 670 (1961); Barrett, supra, at 115-19; Cohen, Sentencing, Probation, and the Rehabilitative Ideal: The View from Mempa v. Rhay, 47 Tex.L.Rev. 1, 9 (1968); Annot., 96 A.L.R.2d 1292, 1295 (1964). The right of allocution existed in 1776 in essentially the form above outlined: it was a formal, narrowly defined right viewed as an essential part of the criminal sentencing procedure. This, therefore, was the nature of the common law right originally secured for the citizens of Maryland by Article 5 of the Declaration of Rights. [7] By the mid-nineteenth century, however, the right of allocution had undergone significant changes. As sentencing statutes prescribing ranges of penalties rather than fixed penalties became more common, judicial discretion assumed a significant role in the sentencing process. Presumably in response to the trial courts' newly vested discretion, the scope of allocution was broadened, permitting a criminal defendant to inform the court of any mitigating factors relevant to sentencing, or simply to plead for leniency. See 1 J. Chitty, Criminal Law 571 (1819); Cohen, supra, at 9; Note, supra, at 822-23; Note, The Admissibility of Character Evidence in Determining Sentence, 9 U.Chi.L.Rev. 715, 715-16 (1942). On the other hand, because the defendant's rights to obtain counsel and to testify at trial adequately protected most of the interests previously safeguarded only by allocution, the importance of allocution declined. Although many states continued to view allocution as an essential part of the sentencing process, and some passed statutes to this effect, a substantial number of jurisdictions came to regard allocution as an obsolete and unnecessary ceremony, even in capital cases. Other states concluded that, while allocution continued to serve a useful function, its omission was not reversible error and did not necessarily require resentencing. Annot., supra, at 1295-1301; Barrett, supra, at 126-43, 232-53. We first addressed the nature of the right of allocution in Dutton v. State, 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417 (1914). There, the defendant had been sentenced to death without first being asked whether he wanted to make a statement before the court. On appeal, we reviewed the relevant rules of criminal procedure then in existence, and acknowledged that most of the reasons originally given for the adoption of [the] practice [of allocution] are not applicable in this State. 123 Md. at 381, 91 A. 417. We further observed, however, that [i]n capital cases the practice, so far as we are aware, has been followed throughout this State, and in most of the Circuits in all penitentiary cases. Id. at 383, 91 A. 417. Dutton strongly endorsed the practice, and recommended that trial courts provide an opportunity for allocution in all cases in which sentences of death or imprisonment in the penitentiary could be imposed. The Court explained that allocution, in its modern form, could provide the sentencing court with information that might well influence the exercise of its sentencing discretion. The Court held, nevertheless, that it is not reversible error, even in capital cases, not to ask the prisoner if he has any reason to give why sentence should not be passed, unless it is apparent that the prisoner was or may have been injured by the omission. Id. at 383, 91 A. 417. Where such actual or potential injury was shown, the Court indicated that the appropriate remedy would be a new sentencing proceeding. Id. at 382, 384, 91 A. 417. The principles of Dutton were applied without modification as recently as the late 1950s in subsequent death penalty cases, see, e.g., Farrell v. State, 213 Md. 348, 354-55, 131 A.2d 863 (1957); Duker v. State, 162 Md. 546, 548, 160 A. 279 (1932), and in noncapital cases, see, e.g., Culley v. Warden, 218 Md. 639, 641, 145 A.2d 226, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 921, 79 S.Ct. 296, 3 L.Ed.2d 241 (1958); Henwood v. Superintendent, 215 Md. 607, 608, 137 A.2d 210 (1957); Pride v. Warden, 215 Md. 601, 602, 137 A.2d 175 (1957). Dutton and its progeny thus embody the common law right of allocution as it existed when we adopted Md.Rule 761 in 1962. Of course, as we have frequently emphasized, the principles of the common law are not immutable. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of the common law, and the key to its continued vitality, is its capacity for growth in response to changing societal values and circumstances. See, e.g., Kelley v. R.G. Industries, 304 Md. 124, 140-41, 497 A.2d 1143 (1985); Jones v. State, 303 Md. 323, 337 n. 10, 493 A.2d 1062 (1985); Jones v. State, 302 Md. 153, 160-61, 486 A.2d 184 (1985); Evans v. State, 301 Md. 45, 57, 481 A.2d 1135 (1984), cert. denied sub nom. Grandison v. Maryland, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1411, 84 L.Ed.2d 795 (1985); Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552, 557, 471 A.2d 705 (1984). Our cases applying the Maryland rules governing allocution have altered the principles of Dutton to some extent. We have previously indicated that, because the right of allocution is not a fundamental right secured by either the federal or state constitution, it is waived if not asserted by the defendant before sentencing. See Logan v. State, 289 Md. 460, 487, 425 A.2d 632 (1981); Robinson v. Warden, 242 Md. 171, 172-73, 218 A.2d 217 (1966); see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 471, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). This principle of waiver is equally applicable to the common law right of allocution, and supersedes the actual or potential injury standard of Dutton. None of our cases have addressed precisely the situation presented in the case now before us, in which a defendant requesting an opportunity to allocute was affirmatively denied such an opportunity. Dutton and its progeny involved a trial court's mere failure to advise a defendant regarding the exercise of a common law procedural right; the trial court's action in the present case, in denying a defendant an opportunity to exercise that right, constitutes a serious breach of procedural fairness. In determining the appropriate remedy, we must consider the function and significance of the right of allocution in the current capital sentencing process. In recent years, the nature of the capital sentencing process in Maryland has changed dramatically. The Maryland capital sentencing statute, enacted in 1978, specifies that a sentence of death may not be imposed unless at least one statutorily enumerated aggravating circumstance be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then only if the proven aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances. § 413; Foster, Evans and Huffington v. State, 305 Md. 306, 309-14, 503 A.2d 1326 (1986) (on motion for reconsideration); Foster v. State, 304 Md. 439, 471-80, 499 A.2d 1236 (1985). Since 1979, the statute has expressly required the sentencing authority to consider any facts it finds to be mitigating. See § 413(g)(8). [8] Section 413(c)(1)(i) states that any evidence relating to any mitigating circumstance is admissible at the capital sentencing proceeding. These statutory provisions reflect a strong public policy of providing the sentencing body in capital cases with the broadest possible range of relevant information that may counsel leniency. As we observed in Kent v. State, 287 Md. 389, 394-95, 412 A.2d 1236 (1980), [a] previously held opinion regarding the appropriate sentence may well be modified after listening to ... defendant's statements in mitigation of punishment. Although evidence of mitigating circumstances, including the defendant's remorse, if any, can be introduced by means other than allocution, the allocutory process provides a unique opportunity for the defendant himself to face the sentencing body, without subjecting himself to cross-examination, and to explain in his own words the circumstances of the crime and his feelings regarding his conduct, culpability, and sentencing. Indeed, even [t]he most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for a defendant as the defendant might, with halting eloquence, speak for himself. Green v. United States, supra, 365 U.S. at 304, 81 S.Ct. at 655. These considerations are reflected in our current Rule 4-343, subsection (d) of which requires the court in a capital sentencing proceeding to afford the defendant an opportunity to allocute if the defendant so requests. Most modern commentators strongly advocate retention of the right of allocution, recognizing that the practice in its present form serves a significant function no other procedural device can completely replace. See, e.g., 3 American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 18-6.4(a)(iii) (2d ed. 1986); W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 25.1(f) (1985); National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Model Sentencing and Corrections Act § 3-206(b) (1978); National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 613(2) (1974); Council of Judges, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Guides for Sentencing 43 (2d ed. 1974); National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Corrections § 5.17 (1973); Cohen, supra, at 9-11. We conclude that, under the common law applicable to capital sentencing proceedings at the time Harris was sentenced, a defendant who timely asserts his right to allocute, and provides an acceptable proffer, must be afforded a fair opportunity to exercise this right. If the right so asserted is denied by the court, as here, the sentence must be vacated and a new sentencing proceeding conducted. In so holding, we do not suggest that the exercise of this right may be unlimited as to either duration or content. Although a sentencing court may not deny a defendant who elects to allocute a fair opportunity to exercise his right, the court may in its discretion curtail allocution that is irrelevant or unreasonably protracted.