Kazadi v. State
223 A.3d 554
Md.2020Background
- Defendant Tshibangu Kazadi requested voir dire questions asking whether prospective jurors could follow instructions on (1) presumption of innocence, (2) State’s burden of proof, and (3) defendant’s right not to testify; the trial court refused.
- Kazadi moved to compel disclosure of immigration-related records (A-number, immigration case number, deportation order) for a key State witness (S.L.); the court denied the motion and granted the State’s motion in limine precluding cross-examination on immigration status.
- At trial S.L. and her son testified identifying Kazadi; jury convicted Kazadi of second-degree murder and use of a handgun; Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- On certiorari the Court of Appeals reconsidered Twining v. State (1964) and related precedent about whether voir dire may probe jurors’ willingness to follow fundamental legal instructions.
- The Court overruled Twining to the extent it barred, on request, voir dire about jurors’ ability or willingness to follow instructions on presumption, burden, and right not to testify; it also held immigration status of a State witness is not automatically discoverable or proper impeachment without evidence of quid pro quo or other indicia of bias.
- Judgment: Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Special Appeals and remanded for a new trial; the voir dire holding applies to cases pending on direct appeal where preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether, on request, trial court must ask voir dire whether jurors can follow instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and right not to testify | Kazadi: Yes — such questions reveal specific cause for disqualification and Twining is outdated | State: No — Twining permits declining such questions; not required; voir dire is limited | Court: Overruled Twining on this point; on request trial court must ask whether any prospective juror is unwilling or unable to follow instructions on those three fundamental rights |
| Whether prosecutor must disclose a State witness’s immigration records (A-number, case number, deportation order) in discovery | Kazadi: Yes — immigration information could impeach credibility or reveal motive to lie | State: No — speculative, not impeachment material absent a showing of inducement or quid pro quo | Court: Denial of disclosure was proper; immigration status alone is not discoverable impeachment material without additional circumstances showing bias/motive |
| Whether cross-examination of State witnesses about immigration status is permitted | Kazadi: Yes — to probe motive, bias, or inducement to testify falsely | State: No — immigration status generally unrelated to truthfulness absent quid pro quo or other link | Court: Preclusion of cross-examination was proper absent evidence of deal, leniency, or inducement tied to testimony |
| Remedy and scope of new rule | Kazadi: Conviction should be reversed and voir dire requirement applied | State: Affirm conviction; Twining remains controlling | Court: Reversed and remanded for new trial; new voir dire rule applies prospectively to preserved issues in direct appeals pending when opinion filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97 (1964) (prior rule declining voir dire on jurors’ willingness to follow instructions on presumption and burden)
- Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167 (1980) (held jury instructions on law are binding and jury’s judicial role is limited)
- Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84 (1981) (instructions on presumption, burden, and right not to testify are binding, not advisory)
- Logan v. State, 394 Md. 378 (2006) (refused requested voir dire about compliance with instructions on not criminally responsible defense)
- Collins v. State, 463 Md. 372 (2019) (framework: trial court must ask voir dire questions on request if reasonably likely to reveal specific cause for disqualification)
- People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984) (Illinois high court: trial court erred in refusing voir dire on presumption, burden, and right not to testify)
- Hayes v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 574 (Ky. 2005) (voir dire about juror prejudice against silence required)
- United States v. Hill, 738 F.2d 152 (6th Cir. 1984) (trial court abused discretion by refusing voir dire on presumption and burden)
- Ayala v. Lee, 215 Md. App. 457 (2013) (immigration status not per se impeachment; inconsistent statements on immigration may open door to inquiry)