245 A.3d 133
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2021Background
- In 2007 Arnold Davis was tried and convicted in Wicomico County for crimes arising from an armed home invasion; his counsel did not object during voir dire to a compound question asking whether the charges of attempted murder and kidnapping "stir up such strong emotional feelings" that a veniremember could not be fair. No jurors responded to the question.
- Davis did not raise the voir dire issue on direct appeal. Ten years later he filed for post-conviction relief, arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the compound "strong feelings" voir dire question under Dingle v. State.
- At the post-conviction hearing trial counsel testified he knew Dingle, sometimes intentionally chose not to object to voir dire questions for tactical reasons, and could not recall why he did not object in this case.
- The circuit court granted relief, concluding the question was improper under Dingle, counsel’s omission was deficient, and prejudice was presumed under Wright v. State, awarding Davis a new trial.
- On appeal the State argued the law at the time of Davis’s 2007 trial allowed two-part "strong feelings" voir dire questions (per Thomas, Sweet, Shim), and that Pearson (which disapproved those questions) was announced later and applied only prospectively; the Court of Special Appeals agreed and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to object to a compound "strong feelings" voir dire question amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel | Davis: counsel was deficient under Dingle for not objecting to the compound question | State: at the time of trial the law (Thomas/Sweet/Shim) permitted such two-part "state of mind" questions, so no deficient performance | Reversed the circuit court: counsel was not deficient because prevailing law at trial permitted the question; Strickland first prong not met |
| Whether prejudice may be presumed from the voir dire error | Davis: prejudice is presumed (citing Wright) | State: actual prejudice must be shown; Pearson’s change was prospective | Court did not reach prejudice because no deficient performance shown; circuit court erred to apply Pearson retroactively and to presume prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 (2000) (disallowed certain two‑part voir dire inquiries about experiences/associations that shifted bias‑detection to venire)
- Thomas v. State, 369 Md. 202 (2002) (held a compound "strong feelings" question about state of mind was appropriate)
- State v. Shim, 418 Md. 37 (2011) (reiterated that courts should ask general strong‑feelings voir dire when requested)
- Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014) (abrogated portions of Thomas/Sweet regarding two‑part "strong feelings" questions and applied change prospectively)
- Wright v. State, 411 Md. 503 (2009) (discussed circumstances in which prejudice may be presumed)