Oregon Supreme Court - May 2, 2018
by: Rankin Johnson • June 5, 2018 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *'''VICTIM'S RIGHTS -- Right of allocution''' </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' *'''VICTIM'S RIGHTS -- Right of allocution''' The tria...") |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The court held that the court could impose reasonable restrictions on the victim’s right of allocution, but that the court had terminated the victim’s statement without warning and while she discussed relevant facts about the defendant’s background and upbringing. The court further held that the victim was prejudiced by being prevented from making relevant statements; in ordering resentencing, the court did not consider whether the sentence would have been affected. | The court held that the court could impose reasonable restrictions on the victim’s right of allocution, but that the court had terminated the victim’s statement without warning and while she discussed relevant facts about the defendant’s background and upbringing. The court further held that the victim was prejudiced by being prevented from making relevant statements; in ordering resentencing, the court did not consider whether the sentence would have been affected. | ||
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll3/id/6782/rec/1 ''State v. Ball/DP v. State''] 362 Or | + | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll3/id/6782/rec/1 ''State v. Ball/DP v. State''] 362 Or 807 (May 2, 2018) (Duncan, J.) |
{{wl-publish: 2018-06-05 10:42:34 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | {{wl-publish: 2018-06-05 10:42:34 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | ||
Revision as of 10:32, June 7, 2018
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
- VICTIM'S RIGHTS -- Right of allocution
The trial court violated the victim’s right to speak at sentencing. Remanded for resentencing.
The criminal defendant was charged with multiple offenses against the victim. The parties reached a plea bargain.
At sentencing, the victim read from a prepared statement. After the victim had spoken for twenty minutes, the court said that it had heard enough. The prosecutor objected, but the court reiterated that it had heard enough, and imposed sentence pursuant to the plea agreement.
The court held that the court could impose reasonable restrictions on the victim’s right of allocution, but that the court had terminated the victim’s statement without warning and while she discussed relevant facts about the defendant’s background and upbringing. The court further held that the victim was prejudiced by being prevented from making relevant statements; in ordering resentencing, the court did not consider whether the sentence would have been affected.
State v. Ball/DP v. State 362 Or 807 (May 2, 2018) (Duncan, J.)
