271 A.3d 1228
Md.2022Background
- Petitioner Brigido Lopez-Villa was convicted after a jury trial of sexual abuse and third‑degree sexual offenses; he appealed.
- Before voir dire defense counsel submitted 26 written questions, including question 2 (asking if jurors "understand" presumption of innocence/burden of proof) and question 22 (asking whether moral/ethical/religious convictions would prevent following court instructions/returning a fair verdict).
- At a pre‑voir‑dire conference the trial court reviewed proposed questions, stated it was “not inclined” to ask Q2 and would modify Q22 (and later asked a different, narrower religious/conviction question); it declined many questions as duplicative.
- During a post‑voir‑dire bench conference the court asked if it had missed any questions and said it would “preserve for the record what you previously objected to”; defense counsel answered “No.”
- The Court of Special Appeals held Lopez‑Villa waived any objection; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding an objection must be made or disagreement indicated at the time the court rules to preserve a voir‑dire omission/modification claim (with limited exceptions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of objection to trial court’s refusal/modification of proposed Kazadi voir‑dire questions | Lopez‑Villa: submitting written questions and the court’s later statement that it would “preserve” prior objections sufficed to make the desired action known | State: No contemporaneous objection was made when the court ruled; counsel later answered “No,” so objections were waived | Held: Not preserved. Md. Rule 4‑323(c) requires contemporaneous objection or indication of disagreement when the ruling is made; written submission alone is insufficient; limited exceptions apply. |
| Whether appellate court should review unpreserved Kazadi claim under Md. Rule 8‑131(a) | Lopez‑Villa: the Court should review because the issue implicates fundamental jury‑trial rights and Kazadi announced a rule applicable to pending appeals | State: Fairness and preservation rules bar review absent timely objection; discretionary review should not be exercised | Held: Court declined to exercise discretion under Rule 8‑131(a); no right to review because no timely objection. |
| Whether mere submission of proposed voir‑dire questions preserves error | Lopez‑Villa: prior written submission put court on notice of requested action | State: Submission alone does not satisfy the rule — court must be told at time of the ruling | Held: Submission alone does not preserve; contemporaneous notice or objection required so court/opponent can address/correct the ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020) (trial courts on request must ask voir‑dire whether prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to follow instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and right not to testify; holding applied to cases pending on direct appeal where preserved)
- Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97 (1964) (prior precedent declined to require such voir‑dire questions; overruled by Kazadi)
- Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95 (2005) (failure to allow voir‑dire questions that may show cause for disqualification can be reversible; preservation requires telling the court you object to omitting proposed questions)
- Brice v. State, 225 Md. App. 666 (2015) (omitted voir‑dire questions waived when counsel failed to object when given opportunity; waiver may be retracted in narrow circumstances)
- Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014) (limits on voir‑dire phrasing and the requirement that questions not improperly instruct jurors or ask them to resolve legal standards themselves)
- Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91 (2009) (Md. Rule 8‑131(a) requires timely objection to preserve issue for appeal; appellate review of unpreserved claims is discretionary and rarely exercised)