Can poor audio quality during remote sentencing violate a defendant's right to allocution? State v. Hurwitz Explained

The COVID-19 pandemic forced Utah courts to conduct proceedings remotely, raising new questions about fundamental procedural rights. In State v. Hurwitz, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether technical difficulties during a remote sentencing hearing can violate a defendant’s right to allocution.

Background and Facts

Dylan Hurwitz pleaded guilty to seven felonies involving burglary and theft that caused nearly $200,000 in damages. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, his sentencing hearing was conducted via videoconference. Hurwitz participated from a county jail room with poor acoustics. While other participants were clearly audible, Hurwitz’s statement suffered from audio problems that made the official transcript largely unreadable, filled with “(inaudible)” notations. The court noted Hurwitz’s voice was “echoey” but did not interrupt his statement, and afterward indicated understanding by commenting on Hurwitz’s acknowledgment that he had “compromised a lot of people.”

Key Legal Issues

Hurwitz raised two challenges: first, that his sentence should be corrected under Rule 22(e) because his right to allocution was violated; and second, that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the audio problems. The case required the court to determine whether unintelligible transcripts necessarily indicate that a defendant’s allocution was inadequate.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals took the unusual step of listening to the actual audio recording, which had been stipulated into the appellate record. Upon review, the court found that Hurwitz’s statement was “sufficiently intelligible” despite the poor transcript quality. The court could clearly hear Hurwitz express remorse, discuss his family situation, indicate his desire to pay restitution, and ask for mercy. The court rejected the Rule 22(e) claim under the current version of the rule, which requires specific conditions that were not met here. The ineffective assistance claim failed because counsel’s decision not to object was reasonable given that the statement was actually audible to the sentencing court.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for remote proceedings. Courts, attorneys, and staff should immediately address audio quality issues during hearings rather than attempting post-hearing corrections. The court emphasized that transcript disputes should typically be resolved by trial courts under Rule 11(h), not appellate courts reviewing audio recordings. For criminal practitioners, the case demonstrates that allocution rights focus on whether the defendant can meaningfully communicate with the court, not whether the official transcript perfectly captures every word. The decision also highlights the importance of ensuring quality audio recordings for transcribers and encouraging multiple careful reviews of difficult recordings.