Opinion ID: 2176137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Court's Refusal to Allow Henry to Present Transcript of Grand Jury Testimony to Jury During Allocution

Text: During his allocution, Henry sought to read to the jury a portion of the grand jury transcript wherein a witness identified as Michelle, who had not testified at trial, contradicted the testimony given at trial by Ms. Sellers. The judge denied Henry's request to present the transcript to the jury. Henry claims that he was deprived of an opportunity to cast doubt upon his factual guilt, and this resulted in reversible error. Henry argues that, since a defendant's allocution should be afforded more leeway than counsel's summation, he should have been permitted to use any resources at his disposal to help him establish a mitigating factor for the jury to consider. He attempts to bolster his argument with Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 507 A.2d 1098, cert. granted in part, 479 U.S. 882, 107 S.Ct. 269, 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), judgment vacated in part and remanded by, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), where we stated that allocution is not limited, in general, to the record in the case, inferences therefrom, and matters of common human experience. Id. 306 Md. at 198, 507 A.2d at 1111. The purpose of a Md.Rule 4-343(d) allocution is to afford the death penalty eligible, convicted murderer the opportunity to make an unsworn statement in mitigation of the death penalty without being subject to cross-examination. Booth, 306 Md. at 198, 507 A.2d at 1111. The rule does not contemplate offering inadmissible evidence during allocution. The right to make a statement about anything mitigating does not include the right to admit documentary evidence after the evidentiary portion of the capital sentencing proceeding has concluded. In the instant case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Henry's request to submit the grand jury testimony to the jury. The State did not call Michelle as a witness; thus impeachment by use of her grand jury testimony was improper. Although Henry had a right to insist on presenting his allocution to the jury, he did not have a right to present a transcript of extraneous, out of court statements made by a person who did not testify at trial.