Collins v. State
158 A.3d 553
Md.2017Background
- Collins was tried in Wicomico County for an armed robbery; jury convicted him of armed robbery and related offenses and he was sentenced to 20 years.
- During voir dire the judge asked the venire a series of single-topic questions and instructed those who answered "yes" to stand for follow-up questioning.
- For Question Six (employment by law enforcement/prosecutor), eleven veniremembers responded "yes" and were questioned individually in open court; one (Juror 538) was later brought to the bench and excused for cause.
- For other sensitive topics (religious/moral inability to judge, knowledge of witnesses), affirmative respondents were called to the bench for follow-up.
- Collins appealed, arguing the judge abused discretion by not informing veniremembers they could request bench questioning and by questioning some sensitive topics in open court, which he claimed discouraged candid answers and risked undiscovered prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding the voir dire provided a "reasonable assurance" that prejudice would be discovered, but issued guidance recommending best practices (e.g., advising jurors that bench follow-up is available; using model questions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge abused discretion in conducting voir dire by not offering bench follow-up or privacy | Collins: failure to offer bench/private follow-up discouraged candid answers and risked undiscovered prejudice | State: judge acted within broad discretion; single-topic questions and selective bench follow-up were adequate | No abuse of discretion; procedure provided reasonable assurance prejudice would be discovered |
| Whether questioning certain veniremembers in open court (law‑enforcement connections) was improper | Collins: such questions are sensitive and should be asked privately to avoid embarrassment and nondisclosure | State: question was non‑sensitive; judge brought truly sensitive matters to the bench | Permissible; judge may question in open court but best practice is to offer bench follow-up |
| Whether judge’s voir dire method violated Maryland precedent requiring comprehensive inquiry | Collins: process risked being cursory and inhibited disclosure | State: questions were single-topic and followed by individual inquiry where needed | Method satisfied Maryland standard; no requirement to always use bench questioning |
| Appropriate remedy and guidance for future voir dire | Collins: reversal warranted given risks of nondisclosure | State: no reversal; affirm conviction | Affirmed conviction; Court recommends best practices and endorses MSBA model questions encouraging bench follow-up for sensitive matters |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. State, 374 Md. 232 (2003) (standard: voir dire must create reasonable assurance prejudice will be discovered)
- Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146 (2007) (voir dire critical to impartial jury guarantee)
- Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981) (voir dire necessary to remove unqualified jurors)
- Wright v. State, 411 Md. 503 (2009) (reversible error when questions are presented in a manner that impedes effective inquiry)
- Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 (2000) (error where compound questions supplanted judge’s role in assessing juror impartiality)
- Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014) (error where phrasing required jurors to self‑assess bias)
- Hernandez v. State, 357 Md. 204 (1999) (reversible error for failing to inquire into racial/ethnic bias when relevant)
- Bowie v. State, 324 Md. 1 (1991) (trial courts must inquire into potential religious bias when relevant)
- Hill v. State, 339 Md. 275 (1995) (voir dire duties and inquiry into bias)
- Davis v. State, 333 Md. 27 (1993) (trial judge should structure potentially embarrassing questions to allow private bench responses)
- Langley v. State, 281 Md. 337 (1977) (must inquire about undue weight given to police testimony)
- Casey v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Balt., 217 Md. 595 (1959) (error for failing to probe possible religious bias)
- Corens v. State, 185 Md. 561 (1946) (juror disqualification principles)
- Burch v. State, 346 Md. 253 (1997) (broad discretion accorded trial judges in voir dire)
- Perry v. State, 344 Md. 204 (1997) (scope of voir dire and appellate review)