Hayes & Winston v. State, 236 A.3d 680

In November 2017 Alex Wroblewski was shot and killed outside a Royal Farms; surveillance video and eyewitnesses implicated Marquese Winston (shooter) and others present in a vehicle driven by Tonya Hayes.
Joint trial: jury convicted Winston of second-degree murder and multiple firearm offenses; convicted Hayes of transporting a handgun in a vehicle and conspiracy to transport a handgun.
During voir dire defense counsel requested questions probing whether venirepersons could follow instructions on presumption of innocence, State’s burden, and defendant’s right not to testify; the trial court declined.
On appeal the Court of Special Appeals held that, under Kazadi v. State, a trial court must ask those questions on request; the court also resolved a preservation dispute and found Hayes’s late written submission sufficient to preserve the claim.
The court reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings because the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the requested Kazadi voir dire questions; it addressed other claims (jury instructions, speedy trial, sufficiency) and upheld the trial court’s rulings on those issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voir dire: failure to ask whether venire can follow instructions on presumption, burden, and right not to testify	Not required; disfavored "catechizing" question and covered by final instructions	Requested on the record; under Kazadi court must ask these questions on request	Refusal was an abuse of discretion under Kazadi; convictions reversed and remanded (preservation resolved for Hayes)
Duress/necessity instruction (Hayes)	No evidence Hayes faced imminent threat or had no reasonable opportunity to escape	Evidence that Winston jumped in car with gun and ordered movement generated some evidence of duress	Trial court did not err denying the instruction; evidence insufficient to generate duress/necessity instruction
Imperfect self-defense instruction (Winston)	He was the initial aggressor; no evidence he actually believed he faced imminent danger	Surveillance and testimony generated at least some evidence of a mistaken belief of danger	Trial court properly denied instruction; Winston was the aggressor and no evidence of genuine belief of imminent danger
Speedy trial (Winston)	Delays were due to complex, multi-defendant case, court logistics, and State workload; no deliberate delay or specific prejudice	16+ month delay produced oppressive incarceration, anxiety, notoriety and hampered defense	Barker factors weighed against finding a constitutional violation; no speedy-trial violation found

Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (Md. 2020) (trial court must ask, on request during voir dire, whether jurors can follow instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and right not to testify)
Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97 (Md. 1964) (prior rule regarding voir dire questioned by Kazadi)
Porter v. State, 455 Md. 220 (Md. 2017) ("some evidence" standard to generate self-defense instructions)
McMillan v. State, 428 Md. 333 (Md. 2012) (duress/necessity defense elements and limits)
Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 (Md. 2006) (standard for when requested jury instruction must be given)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
Kanneh v. State, 403 Md. 678 (Md. 2008) (application of speedy-trial analysis)
Hallowell v. State, 235 Md. App. 484 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018) (standards for flight instruction applicability)
Smith v. State, 374 Md. 527 (Md. 2003) (knowledge of contraband in vehicle imputed to driver; sufficiency for transporting convictions)