Collins v. State, 205 A.3d 1012

Background

Gordon Collins was tried in Anne Arundel County for first-degree burglary and theft; voir dire was conducted before a panel of 45 prospective jurors.
During voir dire the trial court asked compound “strong feelings” questions (linking having strong feelings to being unable to be fair and impartial) and refused defense requests to ask the non-compound form.
The court also asked various other general questions (victim, law-enforcement, emotions, a catchall), eliciting some responses, and seated 12 jurors and 2 alternates; opening statements were given.
After the jury was seated and after opening statements, the trial court — prompted by the prosecutor — asked the seated jurors the properly-phrased (non-compound) “strong feelings” questions; no juror responded.
Collins was convicted; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, reasoning the totality of voir dire questions (and the later re-asking) cured any defect; Collins petitioned to the Court of Appeals.
The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by asking compound “strong feelings” questions, rejecting that other voir dire questions or the later re-asking cured the error, and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by asking compound “strong feelings” questions instead of non-compound form on request	Collins: compound form shifts responsibility to jurors to self-evaluate bias and is improper under Dingle/Pearson	State: questions asked elicited related biases and were adequate; compound form acceptable in context	Court: Yes. On request court must ask non-compound: "Do any of you have strong feelings about [crime]?" Compound form is improper
Whether other voir dire questions (victim, law-enforcement, emotions, catchall) can substitute for a properly-phrased “strong feelings” question	Collins: those questions may miss jurors with strong feelings who are not victims or related to law enforcement; they were also compound and defective	State: totality of questions would have revealed relevant biases; victim/law-enforcement questions largely captured those likely to have strong feelings	Court: No. Other questions cannot substitute; they are not equivalently effective and some were themselves compound
Whether later asking proper non-compound “strong feelings” questions of the seated jury after voir dire and opening statements cures the error	Collins: too late — jurors may be less likely to disclose after being seated/heard openings, or may be influenced by earlier compound wording	State: cure; asking the seated jury restored what was missed earlier	Court: No. Later questioning did not cure error because circumstances differ and jurors may have been less likely to disclose
Whether failure to ask proper questions impaired defendant’s ability to exercise peremptory strikes	Collins: impairment of peremptory strategy; reversible	State: Maryland’s limited voir dire does not exist to aid peremptory-strike strategy	Court: Rejected argument; Maryland law does not recognize a right to broader voir dire for peremptory strategy, but reversal required for the compound-question error itself

Key Cases Cited

Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (reaffirming that on request trial court must ask non-compound “Do any of you have strong feelings about [the crime]?”)
Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 (trial court may not use compound voir dire that shifts bias determination to jurors and forecloses follow-up)
State v. Thomas, 369 Md. 202 (prior case holding trial court erred by refusing a compound strong-feelings question; later limited by Pearson)
Sweet v. State, 371 Md. 1 (addressing strong-feelings questioning in voir dire)
State v. Shim, 418 Md. 37 (discussing strong-feelings voir dire; later clarified by Pearson)
Collins v. State, 238 Md. App. 545 (Ct. Spec. App.) (affirmed convictions below; held totality of voir dire cured improper phrasing and that later re-asking sufficed)