281 A.3d 129
Md.2022Background:
- Incident: Latoya Jordan was tried for two counts of second-degree assault arising from an altercation at a youth sewing program; the State alleged Jordan was the aggressor; defense claimed she was defending her niece.
- Voir dire request: Defense asked the court to ask the Kazadi-form question on whether prospective jurors could abide by the instruction that a defendant has a right not to testify; the trial court refused the request.
- Trial events: Jordan chose to testify; the jury convicted her of assaulting Milroy Harried and acquitted her of assaulting Mary Alexander.
- Procedural history: The Court of Special Appeals reversed under Kazadi, finding the refusal to ask the question was not harmless; the State sought certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
- Holding on review: The Court of Appeals held the Kazadi error (failure to ask the right-not-to-testify voir dire question) is a trial error subject to harmless-error review and, on the record here, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the Court of Special Appeals’ judgment was reversed.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Jordan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s refusal to ask the Kazadi voir dire question about the defendant’s right not to testify is structural error or a trial error subject to harmless-error review | Trial error; harmless-error doctrine applies | Structural error because it implicates a fundamental right and may infect jury impartiality | Trial error; subject to harmless-error review |
| If subject to harmless-error review, whether the refusal was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the defendant testified | Harmless: Jordan testified and the split verdict (acquittal on one count) shows testimony aided defense | Not harmless: failure to ask caused unquantifiable harm from jury empanelment and could have affected Jordan’s decision to testify | Harmless: on this record Jordan’s testimony did not contribute to the guilty verdict as to Harried; State proved no influence beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (Md. 2020) (requires, on request, voir dire questions about presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and right not to testify)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (defective reasonable-doubt instruction is structural error not subject to harmless-error analysis)
- United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1983) (prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s silence can be reviewed for harmless error based on the whole record)
- Ramirez v. State, 464 Md. 532 (Md. 2019) (seating a biased juror does not automatically render trial structurally unfair; record-based prejudice inquiry possible)
- Harris v. State, 406 Md. 115 (Md. 2008) (failure to swear a jury is structural error)
- Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97 (Md. 1964) (prior rule declining routine voir dire on presumption/burden of proof; overruled in Kazadi)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless-error framework in Maryland — State must show error did not influence verdict)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (establishes standard that some constitutional errors may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)