SCOW accepts review to determine admissibility of allocution statements
State v. Daniel J. Rejholec, 2023AP2192-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 5/20/26; case activity
In a case that pits the common law interpretation of a statute against what appears to be a straightforward textual interpretation, SCOW will have the opportunity to issue one of its most consequential criminal law decisions of the term.
Rejholec’s PFR presents the following issues for review:
- Whether an allocution statement made by the defendant prior to the court pronouncing sentence is admissible at a subsequent trial after the defendant withdraws his plea.
- Whether introduction of a defendant’s allocution statement in a subsequent trial after his plea is withdrawn to correct a manifest injustice violates due process.
As we noted in our post on the COA decision, this case is kind of a big deal. Defendants who plead guilty and who hope to appeal are categorically exempted from allocuting at sentencing, lest those statements inevitably undermine any practical benefit they hope to gain from an appeal. As Rejholec’s PFR points out, this will have the effect of encouraging a flood of interlocutory appeals. It also appears contrary to the plain text of the statute. COA’s decision appears to acknowledge these potential issues, but reflects the viewpoint that its hands are tied via existing precedent. Will SCOW’s stated adherence to textualist principles favor this criminal defendant charged with sexual assault? Or will SCOW hold tight to what it apparently said in its 2014 Myrick decision? We are excited to see what happens next!