State v. Jones, 180 A.3d 288

Background

In 2012 Jones committed an armed robbery; he pleaded guilty to first‑degree armed robbery and second‑degree weapons offense under a plea agreement that recommended 15 years (85% parole disqualifier) plus concurrent term on the weapons charge.
At sentencing (May 10, 2013) Jones spoke (allocuted), admitted guilt but said he was not sorry; the prosecutor then made final remarks, during which Jones attempted to interrupt and the court denied that interruption.
After the prosecutor finished, neither Jones nor his counsel renewed a request to speak; the court proceeded to sentence consistent with the plea agreement and identified three aggravating factors and no mitigators.
Jones later raised, through post‑conviction and appellate processes, a claim that his right of allocution and to present mitigating information was infringed because he was not allowed to respond after the State’s final comments; the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court affirmed.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by preventing Jones from responding and whether a court must state reasons when denying further allocution, emphasizing the absence of a developed record from Jones about what he would have said.

Issues

Issue	Jones' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated the right of allocution by not allowing Jones to respond after the prosecutor spoke	Jones: court should have allowed a response to the State’s final remarks; allocution must be construed liberally and a defendant should be allowed to address new substantive material without showing prejudice	State: allocution is subject to reasonable limits; Jones already spoke and court reasonably prevented interruption during prosecutor’s statement	No violation; court did not abuse its discretion because Jones had spoken, did not renew a request, and record shows no new material raised by prosecutor
Whether a sentencing court must provide reasons when it denies a defendant additional allocution time	Jones: denial requires explanation; fairness demands stated reasons	State: discretionary courtroom control; no reason required where denial is appropriate	Court: best practice is to give reasons to permit appellate review, but failure to do so alone did not show abuse here given silence and lack of record
Whether denial of allocution that is not a complete bar to speaking requires remand without prejudice proof	Jones: remand required without showing prejudice if allocution purposes were frustrated	State: standard abuse‑of‑discretion review and prejudice is relevant; Jones suffered no prejudice because he got bargained sentence	Court: remand without prejudice is for structural denials; here allocution was not denied and no structural error shown; must develop record to compel relief
Whether prosecutor’s remarks contained new substantive material requiring a right to respond	Jones: prosecutor introduced new facts to which he should have been allowed to reply	State: facts were known via discovery and presentence report; remarks were not new	Court: accepted State’s representation that nothing new was raised; if truly new material appears, defendant generally should be allowed to respond and court should explain any denial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Tedesco, 214 N.J. 177 (discretion of sentencing judge; master of courtroom)
State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594 (appellate review of sentencing; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (sentencing law principles)
State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283 (discretion over who may speak at sentencing; need for reasons to permit review)
State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434 (allocution origins and purposes)
State v. Zola, 112 N.J. 384 (allocution in capital context; limited scope)
State v. Cerce, 46 N.J. 387 (denial of allocution is structural error requiring resentencing)
State v. Hester, 192 N.J. 289 (summary remand where allocution was denied)
State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128 (deference to defense counsel and record development)