Court Opinion

ID: 9700772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:48:50.218197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.397335
License: Public Domain

Jansen, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent with regard to the majority’s holding that it was "not persuaded that the court’s decision to place defendant under oath at sentencing had an adverse effect on his right to allocution.” Ante at 456. I would hold that the trial court erred in placing defendant under oath before affording him his opportunity to allocute.
The applicable court rule, MCR 6.425(D)(2)(c), does not require that the trial court place a defendant under oath before affording the defendant an opportunity to allocute; rather, the court rule *458provides that the sentencing court must "give the defendant, the defendant’s lawyer, the prosecutor, and the victim an opportunity to advise the court of any circumstances they believe the court should consider in imposing sentence.”
The majority states that defendant arguably waived the privilege against compelled self-incrimination by making limited statements in the context of allocution. In reviewing the record, it is apparent that the statements were made in response to questioning by the court. The trial court asked defendant if he wanted to say anything pertaining to sentencing. The defendant replied "No.” The trial court then proceeded to question defendant further.
The trial court, by placing a defendant under oath, forces the defendant to choose between the privilege against compelled self-incrimination and the right to allocute at sentencing. If sworn, a defendant may choose not to allocute out of fear of prosecution and penalty for perjury. This is particularly true in a case such as this where defendant exercised his right to remain silent at trial. A defendant who has chosen not to testify at trial must, if placed under oath at sentencing, give sworn testimony if the defendant desires to allocute. Such a procedure severely undermines a defendant’s right of allocution.
I would hold that it is inappropriate for a trial court to place a defendant under oath before affording the defendant the right to allocution. In all other respects, I concur with the majority’s opinion.