Collins v. State
192 A.3d 920
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Collins was convicted by a jury in Anne Arundel County of first-degree burglary and theft (< $1,000) after a short prosecution: two State witnesses, no defense evidence, and ~40 minutes of jury deliberation.
- Facts: homeowner discovered a nighttime break-in; police arrived within minutes, found Collins walking away with a plastic bag containing stolen items; victims identified the property.
- During voir dire, the judge asked two compound "strong feelings" questions (e.g., "Do you have strong feelings about burglary to the point you could not render a fair and impartial verdict?") rather than the simple form Collins requested ("Do you have strong feelings about burglary?" and likewise for theft).
- The defense argued the compound wording blurred whether a juror merely had strong feelings or was disqualified, impeding identification of biased veniremembers and impairing strategic use of peremptory challenges.
- After the jury was sworn but before evidence, the judge (over defense objection) re-asked the simple "strong feelings" questions to the seated jurors; no juror responded affirmatively. The trial court denied mistrial; Collins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asking compound "strong feelings" voir-dire questions (instead of simple ones) was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal | Collins: compound questions are improper because they force jurors to self-determine qualification, obscuring the existence of "strong feelings" and depriving defense of information to use peremptory strikes strategically | State: voir dire as a whole adequately probed for bias; follow-up questions and other voir-dire topics (victim, sympathy, prior experiences) would uncover disqualifying facts; subsequent re-asking cured any defect | Court: No reversible error. Although compound questions are flawed under Pearson/Dingle, the totality of voir dire (including other probing questions and the judge’s later simple re-questioning of the seated jurors) disclosed no juror with disqualifying "strong feelings." No prejudice shown. |
| Whether re-asking the simple "strong feelings" questions to the seated jury cured any initial flaw, or whether timing prejudiced Collins’ ability to use peremptory challenges | Collins: re-asking after seating did not cure because it denied defense information about the entire venire and thus impaired meaningful, strategic use of peremptories | State: Maryland’s limited voir dire aims only to identify disqualifying cause; facilitating peremptory strategy is not a purpose of voir dire; later cure sufficed | Court: Cure effective. Under Maryland law limited voir dire does not protect strategic peremptory use; and because no seated juror had "strong feelings," Collins suffered no strategic prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (discusses proper phrasing of "strong feelings" voir dire and limits of equivalency between questions)
- Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 (condemns compound voir-dire questions that shift juror-bias determination to jurors themselves)
- State v. Shim, 418 Md. 37 (applies Dingle to "strong feelings" phrasing and requires properly phrased question)
- Washington v. State, 425 Md. 306 (standard: review voir dire as a whole for abuse of discretion in testing for bias)