Kazadi v. State
Decision Date | 04 February 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 779, Sept. Term, 2017,779, Sept. Term, 2017 |
Citation | 240 Md.App. 156,201 A.3d 618 |
Parties | Tshibangu KAZADI v. STATE of Maryland |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued By: Amy E. Brennan (Paul DeWolf, Public Defender on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD., for Appellant
Argued By: Todd W. Hesel (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD., for Appellee
Graeff, Beachley, Raymond G. Thieme, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
On the evening of August 18, 2015, in an alley behind the 200 block of North Conkling Street in Baltimore, twenty-one-year-old Brandon Smith was fatally shot. The State tried appellant Tshibangu Kazadi, a resident of that street, for Mr. Smith's murder. Critical to that prosecution was eyewitness testimony by two of appellant's next-door neighbors – a mother and her minor son, whose immigration statuses were the subject of discovery and cross-examination rulings that are challenged in this appeal. After both witnesses identified appellant as the killer, a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted appellant of second degree murder and using a firearm in a crime of violence. Appellant was sentenced for the murder to thirty years, with all but twenty-five years suspended, consecutive to fifteen years for the weapon offense, the first five of that served without parole, for a total executed time of forty years.
Appellant challenges his convictions on three grounds, which we have re-ordered chronologically as follows:
Concluding there was no error or abuse of discretion, we shall affirm appellant's convictions. In doing so, we address the limited circumstances in which a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery and cross-examination regarding the immigration status of prosecution witnesses.
On August 18, 2015, fifteen-year-old M.L. and his mother S.L.H. had been living in their family home at 208 North Conkling Street, next door to appellant, for more than two years.1 That evening, S.L.H. asked M.L. to retrieve garbage cans from the alley behind their house. While M.L. was doing so, Brandon Smith was shot three times.
Although M.L. saw appellant fire at the victim, and both he and S.L.H. saw appellant running from the scene with a handgun, they did not tell police until months later. On January 19, 2016, M.L. and his mother, "afraid of what could happen," told police what they witnessed. Both made photo identifications of appellant as the person who shot Mr. Smith and ran from the scene.
Before trial, the parties litigated disputes over whether the State was required to disclose information and documents pertaining to the immigration status of M.L. and S.L.H. and whether defense counsel could cross-examine both witnesses about immigration matters, including a deportation order that S.L.H. mentioned to police. (See our discussion infra , in Part II.) As detailed in our discussion, the circuit court denied appellant's motion to compel discovery and foreclosed cross-examination regarding the immigration status of both witnesses.
At trial, M.L. testified that as he was on his back deck that August evening, he heard a gunshot and looked into the alley. He saw appellant fire a handgun at the victim two or three times. When his mother came to the back door, they both saw appellant run into the back of his house, still carrying a gun in his hand.
S.L.H. recounted that while M.L. was out back collecting their trash cans, she heard gunfire. Stepping out her back door, she saw her son running toward her, saying "that the guy had killed someone." S.L.H. saw appellant "running" and "hiding his weapon," as he fled into his basement with a handgun.
Outside, S.L.H. found a "kid" she did not know, who was "agonizing" with three gunshot wounds
. Her scream drew others. S.L.H. and M.L. told members of appellant's family what they had seen, but they did not tell police or other emergency responders, because S.L.H. "was scared" after appellant's family "realized that [they] had said that [appellant] was the one that had killed him."
S.L.H. and M.L. waited five months, until January 19, 2016, to disclose to police what they saw. After the trial court foreclosed mention of their immigration status, S.L.H. testified that she did not come forward earlier because she was scared of both "[appellant] or his family" and "something else" that was "not connected to [appellant] or his family."
Her disclosure to police occurred after she revealed information to her sons' doctor, who put her in contact with a social worker in the State's Attorney's Office. S.L.H. and M.L. separately met with police, reported what they observed on the night of the shooting, and identified appellant in photo arrays as the person who shot Brandon Smith.
We shall add pertinent facts in our discussion of the issues raised by appellant.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for voir dire questions asking whether prospective jurors would comply with the reasonable doubt standard, the presumption of innocence, and the right not to testify. We agree with the State that the court correctly followed Court of Appeals precedent and did not abuse its discretion in declining to ask about prospective jurors' "willingness to follow points of law covered in the court's jury instructions."
Defense counsel's written request for voir dire questions included the following queries:
The trial court declined to include these questions in its voir dire, ruling that the legal principles addressed in them would be "covered adequately in the instruction portion of the case" and by "other questions" that it planned to ask. Instead, the court used questions taken from the pattern voir dire approved for criminal trials. See Maryland State Bar Ass'n, Model Jury Selection Questions for Criminal Trials , http://www.msba.org/uploadedFiles/MSBA/Member_Groups/Committees/Publications/Criminal%20Voir%20Dire%20Model%20Questions%20(2).pdf[https://perma.cc/D5LY-AZ6B] (last visited December 10, 2018).
Id. at 622-23, 158 A.3d 553 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kazadi v. State
...AppealsKazadi appealed. On February 4, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed Kazadi's convictions. See Kazadi v. State, 240 Md. App. 156, 162, 201 A.3d 618, 622 (2019). The Court of Special Appeals held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to ask voir dire ......
-
Kazadi v. State
...Special Appeals Kazadi appealed. On February 4, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed Kazadi's convictions. See Kazadi v. State, 240 Md. App. 156, 162, 201 A.3d 618, 622 (2019). The Court of Special Appeals held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to ask v......
-
Harriston v. State
...trial court's decision on whether to provide a cross-racial identification instruction for an abuse of discretion. Kazadi v. State , 240 Md. App. 156, 190, 201 A.3d 618 (2019), rev'd on other grounds , 467 Md. 1, 223 A.3d 554 (2020).In Gunning v. State , 347 Md. 332, 701 A.2d 374 (1997), ou......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...Additionally, we agree with the trial court that raising M.'s U-Visa application would have been of little probative value. See Kazadi, 240 Md.App. at 187 ("Absent link between the witnesses' immigration status and their credibility, . . . evidence of [the witness's] immigration status - if......