Court Opinion

ID: 9526656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:21:52.388965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:03.050617
License: Public Domain

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 41. {concurring). I conclude that whether allocution is required by due *472process is not a dispositive issue in this case, because a private pre-sentence investigation and report or sentencing memorandum do not involve the right of allo-cution. The lead opinion1 reaches the same conclusion, yet it goes on to decide, unnecessarily, the due process issue. See lead op., ¶ 35. I agree, however, with the decision of the lead opinion to reverse the Walworth County Circuit Court's decision to deny the State's motion to admit portions of the defendant's sentencing memorandum into evidence at his retrial on charges of first-degree sexual assault of a child.
¶ 42. I write separately because I disagree with the lead opinion's decision to decide whether there is a constitutional right to allocution under either the United States or Wisconsin Constitutions. See lead op., ¶¶ 25-34. Such a decision on the constitutional issues is unnecessary, since it is clearly not material to the holding in this case. I would wait to analyze whether there is a constitutional right to allocution, until a case involving the necessity to decide such issue is presented to this court.
¶ 43. I further disagree with the lead opinion's decision to withdraw language from our decisions in State v. Borrell, 167 Wis. 2d 749, 482 N.W.2d 883 (1992) and Bruneau v. State, 77 Wis. 2d 166, 252 N.W.2d 347 (1977). See lead op., ¶ 31. The decision to withdraw such language is questionable in regard to the United States Constitution because of the decisions of federal circuit courts, see, Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523 (9th Cir. 1992) and United States v. Murphy, 530 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1976), and the United States Supreme Court in *473Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) and in Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961). See also lead op., ¶ 31, n.7. In the Wisconsin Constitution the right to due process is contained in Article I, § 8.2 Moreover, when read in conjunction with this state's recent constitutional amendment with respect to victim's rights, Article I, § 9(m),3 the conclusion that, in the future, we may hold that there is such a right to allocution under the Wisconsin Constitution becomes, I believe, a strong possibility, especially when considered in terms of equal protection, as well as due process.
¶ 44. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.

 The opinion written by Justice Patience D. Roggensack is a lead opinion in regard to the constitutional issue concerning the right of allocution. However, the opinion is a majority opinion with respect to the statutory interpretation issue.

 Article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution states, in relevant part: "No person may be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law...."

 Article I, § 9(m) of the Wisconsin Constitution states, in relevant part:
This state shall treat crime .victims, as defined by law, with fairness, dignity and respect for their privacy. This state shall ensure that crime victims have all of the following privileges and protections as provided by law: timely disposition of the case; the opportunity to attend court proceedings unless the trial court finds sequestration is necessary to a fair trial for the defendant; reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process; notification of court proceedings; the opportunity to confer with the prosecution; the opportunity to make a statement to the court at disposition; restitution; compensation; and information about the outcome of the case and the release of the accused. The legislature shall provide remedies for the violation of this section. Nothing in this section, or in any statute enacted pursuant to this section, shall limit any right of the accused which may be provided by law. (Emphasis added).