Lopez-Villa v. State

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Hotten, J.
• Citation: Lopez-Villa v. State, 478 Md. 1, 271 A.3d 1228 (Md. App. 2022)
• Decision Date: 14 March 2022
• Docket Number: 22, Sept. Term, 2021
• Parties: Brigido LOPEZ-VILLA v. STATE of Maryland

478 Md. 1

271 A.3d 1228

Brigido LOPEZ-VILLA

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 22, Sept. Term, 2021

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 14, 2022

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.

Getty, C.J.,^* McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, JJ.

Hotten, J.

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

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Underlying Incident

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, "the underlying facts are largely irrelevant to the issues on appeal. Suffice it to say that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to support the convictions. [Petitioner] does not contend otherwise."

Lopez-Villa v. State , No. 240, Sept. Term, 2019, 2020 WL 6130896, at *1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 19, 2020).

Legal Proceedings

A. Circuit Court Proceeding

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:

2. Do you understand a Criminal Defendant is presumed innocent and it is solely the burden of the State to produce evidence to convince you, the Jury unanimously, of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

22. Do you have any moral, ethical or religious convictions and/or opinions that would prohibit you from rendering a fair and impartial verdict in this case, and from following the Court's instructions on the Law, including[:] that the accused is presumed innocent, and can only be convicted upon competent evidence produced by the State, convincing you beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant's guilt?

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: ... The Court has reviewed Defendant's [voir dire ]. The Court would not be inclined to ask, because the Court believes it is duplicative with the State's questions, number 1. The Court is not inclined to ask question number 2, as the jury will be instructed as to the law.

Question 3 is duplicative, 4 is duplicative, 5 is duplicative, 6 is duplicative.

[Defense counsel], I don't know. The question about teachers or work in the education field. The jurors should have their occupations listed on the jury profile sheet. So do I need to ask question number 7? It should be on the profile sheet when we get it.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, it should be, but it isn't always there. And the nature of this case, since we will have educators testifying, I think the Defendant has a right to know that.

THE COURT: All right. I will ask it.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And if I can return to number 6?

THE COURT: Yes.

* * *

THE COURT: ... The Court is not inclined to give [question] 22 as it is stated, because the Court will instruct on those areas of the law. But the Court would be inclined to give a modified 22 that indicates whether they have moral, ethical, religious convictions or opinions that would prevent them from returning a verdict.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I am sorry. What happened to 21, my 21?

THE COURT: I am going to add it into 22. Okay?

[THE STATE]: And I apologize, Your Honor. You may [have] just said it in 22. And you are just saying rendering a verdict, not fair and impartial?

THE COURT: No. I would change it to say prevent them from returning a verdict no matter what the circumstances of the case were.

[THE STATE] Thank you, Your Honor.

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:

THE COURT: Did I miss any questions?

[THE STATE]: I don't believe so.

THE COURT: All right. Any additional questions from the State?

[THE STATE]: No, thank you.

THE COURT: [Defense Counsel], anything? --- what you previously objected to, which I will preserve for the record.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No.

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.

B. Kazadi v. State

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.

C. The Opinion of the Court of Special Appeals

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 "defense counsel did not identify the questions that the court had failed to ask or tell the court that he objected to the failure to ask those specific questions. Instead, he asked what the court intended to do with some of his other proposed questions." 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).

DISCUSSION

Contentions of the Parties

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...