State v. Jordan, 281 A.3d 129

Latoya Jordan was tried on two counts of second‑degree assault from an altercation at a youth sewing program; defense theory was that the alleged victims were the aggressors.
Defense counsel requested, during voir dire, the Kazadi question about a defendant’s constitutional right not to testify; the trial court declined the request (stating the instruction would come later and that the question might be confusing).
The trial occurred before Kazadi was decided; Jordan nevertheless testified in her defense, the jury convicted her of assaulting Milroy Harried and acquitted her of assaulting Mary Alexander.
On direct appeal the Court of Special Appeals reversed under Kazadi; the State petitioned for certiorari to decide whether failure to ask the Kazadi voir dire question is structural error or a trial error subject to harmless‑error review, and, if subject to harmless review, whether the error was harmless here.
The Maryland Court of Appeals held the Kazadi error is a trial error (not structural), is subject to harmless‑error review, and, on this record, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless because Jordan’s testimony did not contribute to the guilty verdict as to Harried.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to propound the Kazadi voir dire question about the right not to testify is structural error or a trial error subject to harmless‑error review	The error is a trial error; harmless‑error doctrine applies	The error is structural because it implicates fundamental rights and cannot be quantified; reversible per se	The Court held it is a trial error subject to harmless‑error review (not structural)
If the error is reviewable for harmlessness, was the refusal harmless where defendant actually testified?	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Jordan testified and the mixed verdict suggests testimony helped the defense	Not harmless: harm occurred at empanelment and in the decision whether to testify; jurors might have been biased and the error therefore unquantifiable	The Court held the error was harmless on this record: Jordan’s testimony did not contribute to the guilty verdict as to Harried

Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (Md. 2020) (requires, on request, voir dire questions about presumption of innocence, State’s burden, and right not to testify)
Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (articulates harmless‑error standard in Maryland criminal appeals)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional error may be affirmed only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (some errors—defective reasonable‑doubt instruction—are structural and not subject to harmless‑error review)
United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1983) (prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s silence is trial error subject to harmless‑error analysis; record can establish harmlessness)
Ramirez v. State, 464 Md. 532 (Md. 2019) (seating an identified biased juror is not necessarily structural; courts may assess prejudice from the record)
Harris v. State, 406 Md. 115 (Md. 2008) (complete failure to swear a jury is structural error)
Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97 (Md. 1964) (historical antecedent holding that voir dire need not ask about presumption/burden—overruled by Kazadi)