State v. Jones, 232 N.J. 308

Summary

The New Jersey Supreme Court considers whether a defendant's right of allocution was infringed when the sentencing court prevented him from interrupting the prosecutor and did not invite him to respond after the prosecutor's final remarks. The Court holds that the defendant's claim fails because he and his counsel did not request an opportunity to speak further and did not develop a record identifying what additional mitigating information he would have presented. The Court affirms the sentence while identifying factors courts should consider when deciding whether to permit a defendant to respond to new substantive material raised by the State.

Holdings

1. The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by preventing Jones from interrupting the prosecutor's final remarks and proceeding to sentencing when neither Jones nor his counsel requested an additional opportunity to speak.
2. When the State introduces genuinely new substantive material in its final sentencing remarks, a defendant generally should be allowed an opportunity to respond, subject to the sentencing court's reasonable control over the proceeding.
3. A complete denial of the right to allocution in violation of Rule 3:21-4(b) is structural error requiring resentencing without a showing of prejudice, but Jones established neither a complete denial nor an actionable infringement of that right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by preventing Jones from interrupting the prosecutor's final sentencing remarks and by not independently asking whether he wished to respond before sentence was imposed.
2. Whether Jones was denied his right under New Jersey Rule of Court 3:21-4(b) to allocute and present mitigating information.
3. Whether resentencing was required without a showing of prejudice based on the alleged denial or infringement of allocution.

Disposition

affirmed