People v. McClain, 35 N.Y.2d 483 (1974)

While strict adherence to the statutory allocution requirement (CPL 380.50) is preferred, substantial compliance is sufficient when the defendant is afforded an opportunity to speak, counsel speaks on the defendant’s behalf, and there is no indication the defendant was denied the chance to say anything.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the statutory right of allocution (CPL 380.50) was violated in several cases where the sentencing court’s inquiry regarding the defendant’s desire to speak was allegedly deficient. The Court found that while there was not literal compliance with the statute, there was substantial compliance because the defendants were afforded an opportunity to speak, their counsel spoke on their behalf, and there was no indication that the defendants were denied the opportunity to address the court. The Court affirmed the orders, emphasizing that defendants must have an opportunity to make a personal statement but acknowledged the decreased significance of strict allocution in modern criminal procedure.

Facts

Several defendants appealed their sentences, arguing that the sentencing courts failed to properly ask them if they wished to make a statement before sentencing, as required by CPL 380.50. In some cases, the allocution was phrased in the disjunctive, suggesting that either the defendant or counsel, but not both, could speak. In another case, the solicitation to speak was ambiguously phrased. None of the defendants asserted that they had anything to say or would have addressed the court even if the allocution followed the statute more closely. In each case, defense counsel spoke on behalf of the defendant.

Procedural History

The defendants appealed their sentences, claiming that the sentencing courts did not properly comply with CPL 380.50. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals to address the common issue of the allocution requirement. The lower courts’ orders were affirmed upon review.

Issue(s)

Whether the sentencing courts’ failure to strictly comply with the allocution requirement of CPL 380.50 warrants resentencing, even when the defendant was represented by counsel, counsel spoke on their behalf, and the defendant did not indicate a desire to speak personally.

Holding

No, because substantial compliance with CPL 380.50 is sufficient when the defendant is afforded an opportunity to speak, counsel speaks on the defendant’s behalf, and there is no indication the defendant was denied the chance to say anything.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the historical context of the allocution, noting its origins in a time when defendants lacked many rights, including the right to counsel and appeal. While the common-law justifications for allocution have largely disappeared, the right is still recognized in many jurisdictions, including New York, through CPL 380.50. The statute requires the court to provide the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant an opportunity to speak at sentencing. The Court reasoned that strict literalism in applying the allocution requirement is not necessary. While it would be better for sentencing courts to explicitly state that both the defendant and their attorney have the right to speak, substantial compliance is enough. The Court emphasized that it is important to ensure each defendant has an opportunity to make a personal statement. The Court found that in the cases before it, the defendants were afforded this opportunity because counsel spoke for the defendant, and none of the defendants expressed a wish to speak or were deprived of the chance to be heard because counsel had already addressed the court on their behalf. Therefore, there was no proof that any defendant was denied the opportunity to say anything they chose to say. The Court noted, “While the allocution remains a substantial right, in light of the disappearance of its historical bases and its decreased significance today, we think this was sufficient in these cases.”