Kazadi v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 11, Sept. Term, 2019,11, Sept. Term, 2019 |
| Citation | 223 A.3d 554,467 Md. 1 |
| Parties | Tshibangu KAZADI v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Amy E. Brennan, Assistant Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Todd W. Hesel, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Erica J. Suter, Esquire, Law Offices Erica J. Suter, LLC, 6305 Ivy Lane, Suite 700, Greenbelt, MD 20770, Steven M. Klepper, Esquire, Kramon & Graham, P.A., One South Street, Suite 2600, Baltimore, MD 21202-3201, for Amicus Curiae Joseph Patrick Soule in Support of Petitioner.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Alan M. Wilner (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This case presents another in a series of questions about the voir dire process in Maryland. In recent years, this Court has addressed matters concerning the proper form of voir dire questions and whether certain questions, when requested, are mandatory. See Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350, 354, 86 A.3d 1232, 1234 (2014) ; Collins v. State, 463 Md. 372, 379, 205 A.3d 1012, 1015-16 (2019). In this case, we must decide whether, upon request, a trial court must ask voir dire questions concerning a prospective juror's ability to follow jury instructions on the long-standing fundamental principles of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and a defendant's right to remain silent.
Fifty-five years ago, in Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97, 100, 198 A.2d 291, 293 (1964), this Court held that a trial court need not ask during voir dire whether any prospective jurors would be unwilling to follow jury instructions on the presumption of innocence and the State's burden of proof. In the decades between then and now, this Court has never before expressly addressed whether Twining remains good law.
In this case, for the first time, we are explicitly asked to reexamine Twining. And, as another matter, we must also determine whether, during discovery, a prosecutor must disclose immigration-related information concerning a State's witness who is an undocumented immigrant, and whether a defendant may cross-examine such a witness concerning his or her immigration status.
In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, the State, Respondent, charged Tshibangu Kazadi, Petitioner, with first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence or felony, and wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun. Kazadi requested that the circuit court ask during voir dire whether any prospective jurors were unwilling or unable to follow jury instructions on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the defendant's right not to testify. The circuit court declined to do so.
Before trial, Kazadi filed a motion to compel the State to disclose the Alien Registration Number,1 immigration case number, and immigration-related paperwork of one of the State's witnesses, S.L., who, according to Kazadi, was an undocumented immigrant subject to a deportation order and who, along with her son, M.L.,2 were allegedly attempting to avoid complying with the deportation order. The State filed an opposition to the motion to compel and a motion in limine to preclude Kazadi from cross-examination about S.L.'s immigration status. The circuit court denied the motion to compel and granted the State's motion in limine .
After being convicted, Kazadi appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Kazadi filed a petition for a writ of certiorari , which this Court granted.
Upon careful consideration of developments that have occurred in the fifty-five years since this Court decided Twining, 234 Md. 97, 198 A.2d 291 —including this Court's subsequent holdings that, other than with respect to the crime charged, jury instructions are binding, see Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167, 179-80, 423 A.2d 558, 565 (1980), and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84, 91, 437 A.2d 654, 658 (1981) —we determine that this Court's holding as to voir dire questions in Twining is based on outdated reasoning and has been superseded by significant changes in the law. To the extent that this Court held in Twining that it is inappropriate to ask on voir dire questions concerning the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and a defendant's right to remain silent, we overrule the holding in Twining, and conclude that, on request, during voir dire , a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State's burden of proof, and the defendant's right not to testify.
We also hold that, absent additional circumstances—such as evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement or allegations of leniency in an immigration case—a State's witness's status as an undocumented immigrant, or the existence of a deportation order applicable to the witness, do not show the character of the witness for untruthfulness or demonstrate a motive to testify falsely. Without more, a State's witness's status as an undocumented immigrant, or any deportation order to which the witness is subject, are not required to be disclosed by a prosecutor during discovery, and are not proper subjects of cross-examination.
On January 17, 2017, jury selection occurred. On that date, Kazadi's counsel provided the circuit court with a document that was entitled "Defendant's Proposed Voir Dire[,]" and that included the following questions:
(Numbers omitted). Kazadi's counsel requested that the circuit court ask the four questions during voir dire . The circuit court declined, stating: "Those are covered adequately in the instruction portion of the case and I think are covered in other questions that [I] ask."
During voir dire , after asking questions of the jury panel, the circuit court asked counsel whether there were any objections. Kazadi's counsel stated that he wanted the circuit court to ask the questions in his proposed voir dire that the court had declined to give. The circuit court responded: "[Y]ou've preserved your objection[.]"
On December 8, 2016, Kazadi filed a "Motion to Compel Discovery." (Some capitalization omitted). In the motion to compel, Kazadi advised that one of the State's witnesses, S.L., had provided a statement in which she said "that she was hesitant to come forward with information because she was worried about an outstanding deportation order[.]" Kazadi's counsel requested from the prosecutor, but was not provided, S.L.'s Alien Registration Number, "her immigration case number, and any paperwork [that] she ha[d] regarding her immigration status, including a copy of the deportation order[.]" Kazadi's counsel met with S.L. and the prosecutor, who instructed S.L. not to disclose her Alien Registration Number or answer any questions about the deportation order. Kazadi contended that the deportation order gave S.L. and her son, M.L., a motive to testify against Kazadi, in that their testimony could make them eligible for relief from deportation. Kazadi argued that S.L.'s and M.L.'s alleged noncompliance with the deportation order demonstrated a character trait of untruthfulness.
On December 22, 2016, the State filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery and State's Motion In Limine . The State contended that it was not obligated to comply with the discovery requests for immigration-related information because the State had not promised S.L. that she would receive special treatment in exchange for her cooperation. The State argued that Kazadi had provided no evidence that S.L. was attempting to evade the deportation order. The State asserted that Kazadi's "speculation should not serve as a basis for a fishing expedition into [S.L.'s] immigration status[.]"
Addressing the motion in limine , the State requested that the circuit court preclude Kazadi from cross-examining S.L. about her immigration status. The State contended that information about a witness's immigration status is admissible only where there is a connection between the witness's immigration status and a motive to fabricate testimony. The State argued that S.L. had no such motive as she had no connection to the murder, apart from being a witness who decided to come forward with material information.
On January 13, 2017, the circuit court issued a "Memorandum and Discovery Order[,]" denying the motion to compel and reserving on the motion in limine for a ruling by the circuit court judge who would preside over the trial. (Some capitalization omitted). The circuit court concluded that, without a showing by Kazadi of some "special relationship" between S.L. and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Matthews
...the relevant question has been preserved for appellate review." Rochkind, 471 Md. at 38, 236 A.3d at 652 (quoting Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 47, 223 A.3d 554, 554 (2020) ). In doing so, this Court cited a standard for retroactivity that applies to changes in constitutional rules in crimina......
-
Rochkind v. Stevenson
...decisis ordinarily requires that a court "follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation." Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 27 (2020) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)). However, the doctrine "is not an inexorable command." Savage, 455 Md. at 186 (......
-
Rochkind v. Stevenson
...ordinarily requires that a court "follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation." Kazadi v. State , 467 Md. 1, 27, 223 A.3d 554 (2020) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)). However, the doctrine "is not an inexorable command." Savage , 455 Md. ......
-
Hayes v. State
...was required to ask this question, and that reversal is required in light of the Court of Appeals's recent decision in Kazadi v. State , 467 Md. 1, 223 A.3d 554 (2020), which reversed Twining v. State , 234 Md. 97, 198 A.2d 291 (1964) . We review "for abuse of discretion a trial court's de......
-
Preliminaries
...regarding the credibility of a victim who delayed reporting an alleged attack was not an abuse of discretion. MARYLAND Kazadi v. State , 223 A.3d 554, 581-82 (Md. 2020). On request by the defendant, a trial court is required to ask questions of prospective jurors aimed at uncovering a juror......