State v. Ablonczy, 253 A.3d 598

Anthony Ablonczy was tried for armed robbery, assault, and related offenses after an incident involving a pellet gun; DNA linked him to the scene.
Defense submitted proposed voir dire question No. 18 asking whether prospective jurors could accept presumption of innocence, burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant’s right to remain silent.
The trial court refused to ask that question; defense counsel objected at the bench under Maryland Rule 4-323(c).
At the end of jury selection defense counsel answered “no” when the court asked whether there were any objections to the panel and accepted the jury without qualification; defendant was convicted.
The Court of Special Appeals, applying Kazadi v. State, reversed for the trial court’s failure to ask the requested question; the State appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, holding that accepting the empaneled jury does not waive a prior objection to the court’s refusal to propound a party’s proposed voir dire question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ablonczy)	Held
Whether accepting the jury as empaneled waives a prior objection to the trial court’s refusal to ask a proffered voir dire question	Acceptance of the empaneled jury without reservation waives earlier voir dire objections and thus the issue is unpreserved on appeal	Objecting when the court declined to ask the question preserved the issue under Md. Rule 4-323(c); later acceptance does not constitute acquiescence	Held: Acceptance of the jury does not waive an objection to the court’s refusal to propound a party’s own voir dire question; the objection was preserved
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to ask a Kazadi-type voir dire question (presumption of innocence, burden, right to remain silent)	The trial court followed pre-Kazadi law and properly exercised discretion	Under Kazadi, on request the court must ask whether any prospective juror is unable or unwilling to follow instructions on these fundamental principles	Held (as applied by lower court and affirmed in preservation): Kazadi requires such questions on request; here the objection to refusal to ask was preserved for review

Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020) (requires, on request, that trial court ask during voir dire whether prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to follow jury instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and right not to testify)
Stringfellow v. State, 425 Md. 461 (2012) (distinguishes objections to propounded voir dire questions—waived if jury accepted—from objections to unpropounded questions—preserved)
Gilchrist v. State, 340 Md. 606 (1995) (objection to a prior jury panel preserved where a different panel ultimately tried the case)
Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95 (2005) (Ct. Spec. App.) (holding that refusing to propound a defendant’s requested voir dire questions can be preserved despite later acceptance of the empaneled jury)
Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97 (1964) (prior rule that voir dire need not include questions about presumption, burden, and silence; subsequently superseded by Kazadi)