Kumar v. State, 266 A.3d 295

Amit Kumar was convicted by a Baltimore City jury of first-degree murder and a weapons offense; his lawyers submitted 17 proposed voir dire questions including two "Kazadi-type" questions (presumption of innocence, burden of proof, right not to testify).
At voir dire the trial court denied requests to ask those Kazadi-type questions, citing Twining and an appellate case then pending; defense counsel excepted multiple times and later noted a "continuing exception."
After trial but before sentencing, this Court issued Kazadi v. State changing the law to require, on request, that trial courts ask Kazadi-type questions; the Kazadi opinion was then revised to state it applies to cases "pending on direct appeal" where the question was preserved.
Kumar filed a motion for a new trial (raising the Kazadi objection) which was denied; he later filed a notice of appeal after Kazadi was issued. The Court of Special Appeals applied Twining and denied relief because Kumar had not filed a notice of appeal when Kazadi was filed.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and held Kazadi applies to all cases that were not yet final on direct review (regardless of whether a notice of appeal had been filed) where the issue was preserved; the Court exercised discretion to decide preservation and concluded Kumar preserved the objection, reversed the first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Kumar's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Does Kazadi apply to cases not yet final when the opinion issued even if a notice of appeal had not been filed?	Kazadi should apply to all cases whose direct review was not exhausted when Kazadi issued, provided the issue was preserved.	Initially argued Kazadi applied only prospectively or to cases with appeals then pending; later agreed Kazadi applies to nonfinal cases but raised preservation concern.	Kazadi applies to any case not yet finally disposed of on direct review when Kazadi issued, regardless of whether a notice of appeal was filed, if the issue was preserved.
Was Kumar’s objection to the trial court’s refusal to ask Kazadi-type voir dire preserved for appellate review?	Defense points to written requests, multiple oral exceptions, a noted continuing exception, and a motion for new trial raising the issue.	Argued continuing exception after group voir dire was insufficiently specific to preserve the particular unasked questions.	Court exercised discretion to decide preservation and held Kumar preserved the Kazadi claim under Md. Rule 4-323(c); reversal and remand for new trial.

Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020) (trial court must, on request, ask Kazadi-type voir dire questions)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules must be applied to cases pending on direct review)
Hackney v. State, 459 Md. 108 (2018) (new rule applied to similarly situated pending cases)
Daughtry v. State, 419 Md. 35 (2011) (new rules apply to pending cases when question preserved)
Polakoff v. Turner, 385 Md. 467 (2005) (new interpretations of constitutional provisions apply to the case and other pending cases where preserved)
State v. Ablonczy, 474 Md. 149 (2021) (addresses waiver/acceptance-of-jury issues related to preservation)
Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97 (1964) (the prior rule that trial courts were not required to ask Kazadi-type questions; overruled in Kazadi)