BILL NUMBER:S3082

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to permitting at the discretion of the court certain family
members of a victim who is deceased to read statements in court during
the sentencing of a defendant

PURPOSE:  To correct an unintended flaw in the statute that
effectively prohibits any discretion of the judge to allow for more
than one of the victims' family members to address the court.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:  This bill amends subparagraph 2 of paragraph
(a) of subdivision 2 of section 380.50 of the criminal procedure law,
as separately amended by chapters 173 and 198 of the laws of 1996, to
allow a presiding judge the discretion to allow statements on behalf
of a victim by an immediate family member or up to two members, on
consultation with counsels for the defense and the people.

JUSTIFICATION:  When violent criminal acts kill or maim any person,
friends and family are often victims due to the pain and trauma they
must endure. In our civilized society, families of victims must
exercise restraint and bear the pain of their loss while the wheels of
justice turn and hopefully lead to the conviction of the perpetrator
of the crime. For the murdered victims, surviving close relatives such
as a spouse, mother, father, or children, can often find some closure
at the end of the trial through use of the opportunity to address
              

their loss to the court, and make a statement on behalf of the victim
who can no longer speak for him/her(self). While current law provides
this opportunity by allowing only "a member" of the victim's family to
make a statement, it effectively restricts the judge's discretion.
Current law prohibits the judge from considering the appropriateness
of more than one member addressing the court, even if the victim is
survived by close relatives, such as a spouse and parents.

Certainly, good public policy would deem it appropriate to leave it to
the discretion of the judge to determine if both the spouse and a
parent should speak. The judge should not be forced to choose between
the wife and mother of a victim as it occurred in the recent case of
police officer Anthony Sanchez.

This bill, if enacted, will correct the apparently unintended
restriction, and give the discretion to the court where it
appropriately belongs.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:  2011,2012: S.751 Referred to Codes 2009,2010:
S.340B/A.3525 Referred to Codes 2007,2008: S.389/A.3973 Passed Senate
2006: S.6276/A.3803 Passed Senate 2005: S.6276/A.3803 Referred to
Codes 2003,2004: A.5073A Referred to Codes 2001: A.6193/S.3375A Passed
Senate 2002: A.6193/S.2375A Referred to Codes

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:  No known fiscal impact.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This act shall take effect immediately.