Lopez-Villa v. State
| Citation | 478 Md. 1,271 A.3d 1228 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Parties | Brigido LOPEZ-VILLA v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Piedad Gomez, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Peter R. Naugle, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
In Kazadi v. State , 467 Md. 1, 48, 223 A.3d 554, 582 (2020), we held that a trial court is required, upon request, to ask potential jurors voir dire questions directed at a defendant's fundamental rights related to the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the right not to testify. We held that this ruling applied retroactively to any case that was currently pending on appeal, so long as the relevant question was preserved for appellate review. Id. at 54, 223 A.3d at 586. The present appeal involves one such case that was pending when we decided Kazadi and in which a trial court declined a defendant's request to ask voir dire questions pertaining to such fundamental rights. We now consider whether defense counsel in this case properly preserved for appellate review, Petitioner Brigido Lopez-Villa's claim based on the trial court's failure to ask such questions now required by Kazadi . We granted certiorari to address the following question:
Where Petitioner submitted a written request for Kazadi [voir dire ] questions and the trial court "reviewed" the questions and ruled that it was "not inclined to ask" them "because the Court will instruct on those areas of law," did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that Petitioner "failed to preserve his objection to the court's refusal to read his proposed [voir dire ] questions," because he "failed to ask or tell the court that he objected to the failure to ask those specific questions," and because when, at the end of [voir dire ], the trial court inquired, "[d]id I miss any questions ... what you previously objected to, which I will preserve for the record," counsel responded "no"?
We answer in the negative and affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.1
Petitioner was convicted of one count of sexual abuse of a minor and four counts of third-degree sexual offense, following a four-day jury trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. As aptly stated by the Court of Special Appeals,
Prior to trial, both Petitioner and the State submitted proposed voir dire questions to the trial court. Petitioner submitted a total of twenty-six questions, the following two of which are presently at issue:
The trial court reviewed the parties’ proposed questions and, after discussion with counsel prior to voir dire , rejected some and accepted others from both sides. The following colloquies took place between the court and defense counsel pertaining to the two questions at issue here:
The court then proceeded with voir dire , during which it did not ask Petitioner's proposed question 2 and asked the following modified version of Petitioner's proposed question 22: "[i]s there any member of the jury panel who has any political, religious or other convictions that would prevent you from sitting as a juror in this case and returning a verdict based solely upon the law and the evidence?"
After the conclusion of voir dire , the court held a bench conference with counsel and the following ensued:
Following trial, the jury acquitted Petitioner of three counts of second-degree rape and two counts of second-degree sexual offense, but convicted him of one count of sexual abuse of a minor and four counts of third-degree sexual offense. He was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment.
Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals, which stayed the matter pending this Court's decision in Kazadi v. State , determining that case had bearing on Petitioner's appeal. See Lopez-Villa , 2020 WL 6130896, at *1. In Kazadi , we held 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 long-standing fundamental principles of the presumption of innocence, the State's burden of proof, and the defendant's right not to testify." 467 Md. at 35–36, 223 A.3d at 574–75. In doing so, we overruled our previous precedent in Twining v. State , which was still good law at the time Petitioner's case was decided and which held that a trial court was not so required. 234 Md. 97, 100, 198 A.2d 291, 293 (1964). Kazadi expressly stated that its holding was applicable to any cases that were currently pending on direct appeal, so long as "the relevant question has been preserved for appellate review." 467 Md. at 47, 223 A.3d at 581.
Following this Court's decision in Kazadi , the Court of Special Appeals considered Petitioner's appeal, but determined in an unreported opinion that his objection to the exclusion of his voir dire questions impacted by Kazadi was not preserved for appellate review.2 Lopez-Villa , 2020 WL 6130896, at *1. In reliance on Maryland Rule 4-323(c), it determined that Petitioner's defense counsel did not "make[ ] known to the court ... the objection to the action of the court." Id. at *3 (quoting Md. Rule 4-323(c) ). Specifically, the Court of Special Appeals stated that Id. It also reasoned that Petitioner failed to preserve his objection when defense counsel requested no additional questions following voir dire after being prompted by the court. Id. In so finding, the Court of Special Appeals rejected Petitioner's argument that "any additional ‘protest’ " would have antagonized the court, as it found that Petitioner never made any initial protest to the court's actions. Id.
Following the decision of the Court of Special Appeals, Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to this Court, which we granted on August 3, 2021. Lopez- Villa v. State , 475 Md. 698, 257 A.3d 1161 (2021).
Petitioner alleges that the Court of Special Appeals erred in finding that he waived his objection to the trial court's denial of his proposed voir dire questions 2 and 22, which he asserts are now required by Kazadi . He argues that his objection is preserved under Maryland Rule 4-323(c) because, by submitting written proposed voir dire questions to the trial court, it understood the action that he "desired the court to take[,]" in satisfaction of the Rule. Petitioner alleges that no contemporaneous objection to the court's decision to exclude question 2 and modify question 22 was necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huggins v. State
...246 (2015). The State also cites to numerous Maryland appellate decisions, including our more recent opinion in Lopez-Villa v. State , 478 Md. 1, 19, 271 A.3d 1228 (2022),2 in which this Court found that defense counsel's failure to object to the denial of voir dire questions resulted in a ......
-
Huggins v. State
...to say that the trial judge erred in admitting a piece of evidence if the judge wasn't asked to exclude it in the first place. See Lopez-Villa, 478 Md. at 13 ("Without contemporaneous objection or expression of disagreement, the trial court is unable to correct, and the opposing party is un......
- Johnson v. State
-
Rodgers v. State
...shortly after our decision in Rodgers I. Specifically, the Court of Appeals has directed that we "consider whether or not the holding in [Lopez-Villa] should be to our holding in Rodgers I concerning whether the trial court erred by not asking requested voir dire questions now required unde......