Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 972.14 (2026)
Statements before sentencing
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
972.14(1)(ag)(ag) “Crime considered at sentencing” means any crime for which the defendant was convicted and any read-in crime, as defined in s. 973.20 (1g) (b).
972.14(2)(2) Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall ask the defendant why sentence should not be pronounced upon him or her and allow the district attorney, defense counsel and defendant an opportunity to make a statement with respect to any matter relevant to the sentence. In addition, if the defendant is under 21 years of age and if the court has not ordered a presentence investigation under s. 972.15, the court shall ask the defendant if he or she has been adjudged delinquent under ch. 48, 1993 stats., or ch. 938 or has had a similar adjudication in any other state in the 4 years immediately preceding the date the criminal complaint relating to the present offense was issued.
972.14(2m)(2m) Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall inquire of the district attorney whether he or she has complied with s. 971.095 (2) and with sub. (3) (b), whether any of the victims of a crime considered at sentencing requested notice of the date, time and place of the sentencing hearing and, if so, whether the district attorney provided to the victim notice of the date, time and place of the sentencing hearing.
972.14(3)(a)(a) Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall determine whether a victim of a crime considered at sentencing wants to make a statement to the court. If a victim wants to make a statement, the court shall allow the victim to make a statement in court or to submit a written statement to be read in court. The court may allow any other person to make or submit a statement under this paragraph. Any statement under this paragraph must be relevant to the sentence.
972.14(3)(b)(b) After a conviction, if the district attorney knows of a victim of a crime to be considered at sentencing, the district attorney shall make a reasonable attempt to contact that person to inform him or her of the right to make or provide a statement under par. (a). Any failure to comply with this paragraph is not a ground for an appeal of a judgment of conviction or for any court to reverse or modify a judgment of conviction.
972.14 AnnotationA court’s presentencing preparation and formulation of a tentative sentence does not deny a defendant’s right to allocution at sentencing. State v. Varnell, 153 Wis. 2d 334, 450 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1989).
972.14 AnnotationThe right, under sub. (2), of a defendant to make a statement prior to sentencing does not apply to an extension of a placement under the intensive sanctions program. State v. Turner, 200 Wis. 2d 168, 546 N.W.2d 880 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1295.
972.14 AnnotationDenial of the defendant’s right to speak at sentencing is harmless error when a life sentence without parole is mandatory. State v. Lindsey, 203 Wis. 2d 423, 554 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3392.
972.14 AnnotationThe good character of a victim killed as the result of a crime is relevant in sentencing. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, 01-0051.
972.14 AnnotationThis section does not specify any particular party to read a victim’s statement. The sole limitation on the victim’s statement is that it be “relevant to the sentence.” If a judge does not ensure compliance with the victims’ rights statutes, the judge can be fined under s. 950.11. State v. Bokenyi, 2014 WI 61, 355 Wis. 2d 28, 848 N.W.2d 759, 12-2557.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: State v. Greve, 2004 WI 69 (Wis. 2004).
State v. Greve, 2004 WI 69 (Wis. 2004). “1996) *465 (concluding that the right of allocution is purely statutory in Wisconsin and it is contained in Wis. Stat. § 972.14 (2)). Therefore, given the clear statement by the United States Supreme Court in Hill , we clarify our opinions in both Borrell and Bruneau , and all…”
State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42 (Wis. 2004). “§ 972.14(2m) provides: Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall inquire of the district attorney whether he or she has complied with s.”
State v. William F. Bokenyi, 2014 WI 61 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 972.14 (3)(a). Commentary on and consideration of the victim's recommendations by counsel and the court may be warranted.”
State v. Frey, 2012 WI 99 (Wis. 2012). “At least two separate times later in the hearing, Frey's counsel referred to other charges from *395 Michigan and attempted to discourage the court's consideration of those previously dismissed or yet untried charges.”
State v. Lindsey, 554 N.W.2d 215 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, on three separate grounds, alleging it violates (1) the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; (2) the separation of powers doctrine; and (3) the equal protection doctrine. Lindsey also argues he was denied due process of law when the trial court failed to afford…”
State v. Jones, 444 N.W.2d 760 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “On August 3, 1989, after this opinion was released, sec. 972.14(3), Stats., was enacted. 1989 Wis.”
State v. Groth, 2002 WI App 299 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1992), but also, through the right of allocution, the "opportunity to make a statement with respect to any matter relevant to the sentence," Wis. Stat. § 972.14 (2). Where, however, a defendant fails to object to allegedly erroneous information presented at sentencing, and fails…”
Contempt in State v. Dewerth, 407 N.W.2d 862 (Wis. 1987). “7 Sec. 972.14, Stats., provides: "Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall inquire of the defendant why sentence should not be pronounced upon him and accord the district attorney, defense counsel and defendant an opportunity to make a statement with respect to any matter…”
Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “1981, § 970, which states: When the defendant appears for judgment, he must be informed by the court, or by the clerk under its direction, of the nature of the indictment or information, and his plea and the verdict, if any thereon, and must be asked whether he has any legal…”
State v. Straszkowski, 2008 WI 65 (Wis. 2008). “20 , and is additionally incorporated by reference into the statute governing victim statements to be made before sentencing (§ 972.14(3)) and the statute governing sentencing restrictions on contact with victims of, or co-actors in, crimes (§ 972.”
State v. Payette, 2008 WI App 106 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “14 , "Statements before sentencing," which states, in pertinent part: (3) (a) Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall determine whether a victim of a crime considered at sentencing wants to make a statement to the court.”
State v. Gallion, 2002 WI App 265 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The logical corollary to these rights is that prosecutors, and surviving family and friends of homicide victims, may inform sentencing courts of a victim's character, including his or her traits and activities, in order to convey the loss caused by the homicide.”
— Wis. Stat. § 972.14(2) — 12 cases
State v. Greve, 2004 WI 69 (Wis. 2004). “1996) *465 (concluding that the right of allocution is purely statutory in Wisconsin and it is contained in Wis. Stat. § 972.14 (2)). Therefore, given the clear statement by the United States Supreme Court in Hill , we clarify our opinions in both Borrell and Bruneau , and all…”
State v. Lindsey, 554 N.W.2d 215 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, on three separate grounds, alleging it violates (1) the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; (2) the separation of powers doctrine; and (3) the equal protection doctrine. Lindsey also argues he was denied due process of law when the trial court failed to afford…”
Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “1981, § 970, which states: When the defendant appears for judgment, he must be informed by the court, or by the clerk under its direction, of the nature of the indictment or information, and his plea and the verdict, if any thereon, and must be asked whether he has any legal…”
State v. Perez, 487 N.W.2d 630 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Mosley, 547 N.W.2d 806 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wis. Stat. § 972.14(2m) — 1 case
State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42 (Wis. 2004). “§ 972.14(2m) provides: Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall inquire of the district attorney whether he or she has complied with s.”
— Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3) — 2 cases
State v. Straszkowski, 2008 WI 65 (Wis. 2008). “20 , and is additionally incorporated by reference into the statute governing victim statements to be made before sentencing (§ 972.14(3)) and the statute governing sentencing restrictions on contact with victims of, or co-actors in, crimes (§ 972.”
State v. Jones, 444 N.W.2d 760 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “On August 3, 1989, after this opinion was released, sec. 972.14(3), Stats., was enacted. 1989 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42 (Wis. 2004). “§ 972.14(2m) provides: Before pronouncing sentence, the court shall inquire of the district attorney whether he or she has complied with s.”
State v. Jones, 444 N.W.2d 760 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “On August 3, 1989, after this opinion was released, sec. 972.14(3), Stats., was enacted. 1989 Wis.”
State v. Gallion, 2002 WI App 265 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The logical corollary to these rights is that prosecutors, and surviving family and friends of homicide victims, may inform sentencing courts of a victim's character, including his or her traits and activities, in order to convey the loss caused by the homicide.”
State v. H. C., 2025 WI 20 (Wis. 2025).
State v. Spears, 585 N.W.2d 161 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Robinson, 2001 WI App 127 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.