Hayes v. State
217 Md. App. 159
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Defendant Lance William Hayes (African American) was tried and convicted by a Prince George’s County jury for attempted murder, assaults, and related handgun offenses; sentenced to 53 years.
- Victim Herman Grace (African American) was shot after a custody dispute involving Hayes and the Graces’ daughter; Grace survived and identified Hayes at trial.
- Defense requested a specific voir dire question (Question 8): whether Hayes’s race would affect jurors’ ability to be fair and impartial; the trial court refused to ask it to the venire of 72.
- Mid-trial, the State conceded the court’s refusal likely violated Hernandez and asked the court to cure by asking the seated jurors the race question; defense opposed and the court declined to ask the seated jurors.
- On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held the trial court’s refusal to pose the race question during initial voir dire was reversible error and reversed and remanded; the court did not reach the other two issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to propound the requested racial-bias voir dire question | Hayes: court must ask a requested race/ethnicity question to uncover bias (Hernandez) | State: error conceded but any error was waived because Hayes opposed mid-trial cure; asking seated jurors would have cured it | Reversed: refusal to ask the question at initial voir dire was reversible error; mid-trial questioning of seated jurors would not have been an adequate cure, so Hayes did not waive relief |
| Whether the court erred in admitting a victim’s out-of-court statement as a prior consistent statement | Hayes: admission was improper hearsay | State: (not resolved) | Not reached due to disposition on voir dire issue |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing comments (references to God) were plain error | Hayes: comments appealed to passion and prejudice; plain error | State: (not resolved) | Not reached due to disposition on voir dire issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. State, 357 Md. 204 (1999) (requested race/ethnicity voir dire question ordinarily must be propounded)
- Washington v. State, 425 Md. 306 (2012) (trial judge must conduct adequate voir dire to uncover bias)
- Terry v. State, 332 Md. 329 (1993) (rejecting waiver where defendant reasonably refused a proposed limiting instruction)
- Curtin v. State, 393 Md. 593 (2006) (discussion of mandatory voir dire subjects when directly related to the case)
- Moore v. State, 412 Md. 635 (2010) (voir dire’s ultimate goal is an impartial, unbiased jury)