BILL NUMBER: S4774

SPONSOR: JORDAN
 
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 effec-
tively 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 offi-
cer 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:
2019: 5.898 Referred to Codes
2018: S.537 Referred to Codes
2017: 5.537 Passed Senate 2015,2016: 5.2993 Passed Senate
2013,2014: 5.3082 Referred to Codes
2011,2012: 5.751 Referred to Codes
2009,2010: S.3408/A.3525 Referred to Codes
2007,2008: 5.389 /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.6193/5.3375A Passed Senate
2002: A.6193/S.3375A Referred to Codes

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No known fiscal impact.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.