Background
Ashlee Noble pleaded guilty to burglary (second-degree felony) and felonious assault (second-degree felony) in Trumbull County. At sentencing, defense counsel presented extensive mitigating information, including Noble’s lack of criminal history, history as a domestic violence victim, mental health diagnoses, and low recidivism risk. Defense counsel then indicated Noble had prepared a written statement she wished to read.
When Noble began reading her statement, the trial court repeatedly interrupted her, told her to “slow down and speak real loud,” and ultimately stated it could not understand “a word” she was saying and directed her attorney to read the statement instead. Defense counsel then read the remainder of Noble’s statement. The trial court subsequently sentenced Noble to an aggregate prison term of two to three years, emphasizing what it characterized as her lack of genuine remorse and failure to accept responsibility.
The Court’s Holding
In a 2-1 decision, the Eleventh District reversed and remanded for resentencing. The majority held that the trial court violated Noble’s right of allocution — the personal right of a criminal defendant to speak on their own behalf before sentencing, guaranteed by Crim.R. 32(A)(1) — by consistently interrupting her and ultimately preventing her from personally reading her written statement.
The court found the error was not harmless because the trial court placed significant emphasis on Noble’s purported lack of genuine remorse and failure to accept responsibility in imposing her sentence. Having been denied the full opportunity to speak in her own voice, the court reasoned, Noble was deprived of the chance to demonstrate the very remorse the trial court found lacking. The dissent argued the error was invited because defense counsel acquiesced in the judge’s suggestion to read the statement on Noble’s behalf.
Key Takeaways
- The right of allocution under Crim.R. 32(A)(1) is a personal right that cannot be satisfied merely by having defense counsel read the defendant’s statement; the defendant must be permitted to speak in her own words.
- A trial court’s interruption of a defendant’s allocution statement is not harmless error when the court subsequently weighs the defendant’s perceived lack of remorse against her at sentencing.
- The dissent’s invited-error argument highlights a tension: when defense counsel acquiesces to a trial court’s suggestion that replaces the defendant’s personal statement, the defendant may be deemed to have invited the error.
Why It Matters
This split decision highlights a significant and unresolved tension in Ohio sentencing practice. Defense attorneys must be vigilant in protecting a client’s personal right to allocution, even when a trial court grows impatient. The majority’s holding that the error was not harmless because the court then penalized the defendant’s perceived lack of remorse creates a clear framework: if a sentencing court relies on the defendant’s demeanor or expression of remorse, any interference with allocution is likely reversible. Criminal defense practitioners should object on the record if a trial court attempts to cut short or redirect a defendant’s allocution statement.