Summary
The Supreme Court of California held that California law gives a criminal defendant the right to make a personal statement in mitigation of punishment through sworn testimony subject to cross-examination, principally under Penal Code section 1204. The court held that Penal Code section 1200's allocution provision does not itself authorize an unsworn mitigating statement, and affirmed because the defendant forfeited the right by failing to timely request to testify before sentencing began.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Penal Code section 1200 gives a criminal defendant a right, in response to the court's allocution, to make an unsworn personal statement in mitigation of punishment.
- Whether Penal Code section 1204 gives a criminal defendant the right to make a personal statement in mitigation through sworn testimony subject to cross-examination.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing Evans's request to speak after defense counsel had submitted the matter and the court had begun imposing sentence.
- Whether the federal Constitution requires an opportunity for a defendant to make an unsworn personal statement in mitigation without cross-examination.
Holdings
- Penal Code section 1200 does not entitle a defendant, in response to the allocution inquiry, to offer a personal statement in mitigation of punishment because such a statement does not show legal cause why judgment should not be pronounced.
- California law gives a criminal defendant the right to present personal mitigating testimony at sentencing under Penal Code section 1204, but an oral personal statement must be made under oath and be subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor.
- Evans forfeited his right to testify in mitigation because neither he nor defense counsel made a timely request before the court began pronouncing sentence.
- The federal Constitution does not require a defendant to be permitted to make an unsworn personal statement in mitigation without cross-examination because California's opportunity to present sworn mitigating testimony provides a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Key quotations
“Here, a mitigating statement by defendant is not "legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced," and thus does not come within the plain meaning of section 1200.” (597)
“By stating in section 1204 that mitigating evidence must be presented through "the testimony of witnesses examined in open court" rather than verbal representations, the Legislature has declared that a criminal defendant wishing to make an oral statement to the court in mitigation of punishment must do so through testimony given under oath.” (598)
“California law, through section 1204, gives a criminal defendant the right at sentencing to make a sworn personal statement in mitigation that is subject to cross-examination by the prosecution.” (600)
Factual background
A jury convicted Blaine Allen Evans of receiving stolen property, a felony. The trial court found that he had five prior felony convictions for which he had served prison terms and a prior serious or violent felony strike. At sentencing, defense counsel sought probation and drug treatment, but after the matter was submitted Evans asked to speak while the court was beginning to impose sentence; the court refused and imposed a five-year prison term.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Evans of felony receiving stolen property. The trial court found five prior prison-term convictions and a prior serious or violent felony strike, denied probation and a request to dismiss the strike, and imposed a five-year prison sentence. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant has no right to make a personal statement in mitigation during allocution. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal.