Khaliq Khan v. State, 74 A.3d 844

Khaliq Khan, a security guard at Ulta in Silver Spring, was tried for two third-degree sex offenses and two second-degree assaults based on alleged inappropriate touching of two minors; jury convicted him of one count of second-degree assault and acquitted him of the remaining charges.
Khan was sentenced to five years with all but 60 days suspended and three years supervised probation; he appealed raising four main issues.
During voir dire defense used multiple peremptory strikes against white males; the court found a pattern and, after finding one strike (juror 95) pretextual, reseated that juror over defense objection (Batson dispute).
On cross-examination defense elicited favorable character testimony about Khan’s work; the State was permitted to elicit limited testimony that a prior customer complaint had prompted a managerial conversation about boundaries (questioned as prior bad acts evidence).
Khan testified that neighborhood demographics made him vigilant and that he did not intend discrimination; the State cross-examined him about whether race made him nervous, which Khan denied as intending racial prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Khan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Reseating juror after Batson challenge	Trial court erred; defense’s reasons for striking juror 95 were race-/gender‑neutral and credible	Court reasonably found one explanation pretextual given pattern and differences among strikes	Affirmed: no reversible error; trial court’s Batson finding not clearly erroneous
2. Admission of prior customer complaint (bad acts)	Evidence of prior complaint was inadmissible Rule 5‑404(b) bad‑acts evidence	Testimony was either responsive under "open door" or admissible for impeachment; limited and non‑detailed	Affirmed: admission proper (open‑door and impeachment); no undue prejudice
3. Cross‑examination about racial prejudice	State’s questioning improperly introduced racial prejudice and was unfairly prejudicial	Questions sought to clarify Khan’s testimony about neighborhood and nervousness; relevant to intent/explanation	Affirmed: questioning was relevant to clarify defendant’s testimony and not unduly prejudicial
4. Voir dire phrasing re: bias (omission of "strong feelings")	Court should have asked the exact "strong feelings" phrasing to uncover bias	The court’s question targeted bias sufficiently; form is within trial court discretion and was more favorable to defendant	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; question adequately targeted bias

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (establishes prohibition on race‑based peremptory strikes and three‑step Batson framework)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (holds defendants also subject to Batson restraint)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (race‑neutral explanation need not be persuasive; outlines Batson step structure)
Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (permits consideration of all relevant circumstances when inferring purposeful discrimination)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (discussion of mixed‑motive issues and review of Batson determinations)
Gilchrist v. State, 340 Md. 606 (Maryland case recognizing that facially neutral explanations can be found pretextual)
Mitchell v. State, 408 Md. 368 (discusses "open door" doctrine permitting responsive evidence)
Eiler v. State, 63 Md. App. 439 (cautionary precedent on prosecutorial use of racially charged collateral testimony)