BILL NUMBER:S2993

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:

2013,2014: S.3082 Referred to Codes
2011,2012: S.751 Referred to Codes
2009,2010: S.3408/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.3375A Referred to Codes

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No known fiscal impact.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This act shall take effect immediately.