As to being cross-examined by JM on her secret testimony:
"...¶ 32 In Arizona, a defendant has a right to allocute before sentencing.   Ariz. R.Crim. P. 19.1(d)(7), 26.10(b)(1).   This right, however, is “not absolute.”  Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 350 ¶ 100, 111 P.3d at 392.  
Defendants may not “shift a mitigating circumstance ․ [into] allocution and thereby insulate that mitigating circumstance from rebuttal evidence.”  State v. Armstrong, 218 Ariz. 451, 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d 378, 390 (2008).   We have repeatedly upheld trial courts' admonitions that
defendants may be subject to cross-examination if they exceed the scope of permissible allocution.   See, e.g., State v. Womble, _ P.3d _, 2010 WL 2720408, *7-8 ¶¶ 42-45 (Ariz. July 12, 2010);  Armstrong, 218 Ariz. at 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d at 390.   The judge did not abuse his discretion in so warning Chappell.
¶ 33 We find similarly unpersuasive Chappell's argument that placing limits on his allocution violated due process. The cases Chappell cites address a complete denial of a defendant's right to speak before sentencing, rather than the effect of limiting such speech.   See, e.g., Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962);  McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 217-20 (1971);  Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir.1992).   Here, in contrast, Chappell was permitted to speak to the jury before sentencing.
- See more at:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1533676.html#sthash.dEnLDiKp.dpuf
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1533676.html
