State v. Thompson, 2013 Ohio 1981

Thompson challenged his disorderly-conduct conviction on Crim.R. 32 allocution error; the trial court did not address him personally before accepting mitigation.
The court asked mitigation and heard from Thompson’s counsel, then questioned Hughes and her mother before addressing Thompson personally.
Thompson asserted the court’s failure to invite his personal allocution violated Crim.R. 32(A)(1).
The court set expectations for sentencing, Thompson spoke, and the court imposed the sentence it had indicated, with a short stay granted.
The court recognized the allocution issue but found the error harmless under the totality of circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to address Thompson personally violated Crim.R. 32(A).	Thompson asserts lack of personal allocution before sentencing.	The record shows mitigation was discussed and the defendant had an opportunity to speak.	Harmless error; no reversal.

Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (allocution not constitutional error; but require personal invitation)
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961) (trial judges should unambiguously invite defendant to speak)
State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352 (2000) (Crim.R. 32 inquiry must be directed to defendant; failure can be harmless)
State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000) (harmless error standard for allocution when sentence imposed without inquiry)
Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 (1998) (harmless error where defendant spoke or evidence could alter sentencing)
Mynhier, 146 Ohio App.3d 217 (2001) (some districts found harmless where no mitigation evidence on appeal)
State v. Cowen, 167 Ohio App.3d 233 (2006) (second district disavowed Mynhier, supports harmlessness analysis)
State v. Spradlin, 2005-Ohio-4704 (2005) (Fourth District view on mitigation evidence during appeal)