State v. Stringfellow
425 Md. 461
Md.2012Background
- Stringfellow was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on two firearms-related counts after a November 21, 2009 incident on Beaufort Ave.
- During voir dire, the State asked a question about whether the State must use specific scientific techniques before a verdict; defense objected.
- The judge ultimately posed the State’s question; no venire responses were recorded.
- After voir dire, the clerk asked if the jury was acceptable to the State and to the defense; both sides agreed.
- Stringfellow argued the handgun fingerprint evidence was missing and pressed lack of fingerprint testing as part of trial defense; the court admitted a blank fingerprint-analysis form.
- Stringfellow appealed, the Court of Special Appeals reversed for a new trial, the State sought certiorari, and the Court of Appeals reversed that court and remanded with instructions to affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of voir dire objection to CSI question | Stringfellow objected to the CSI question | Waiver occurred by accepting the empaneled jury | Objection waived; harmless error if preserved |
| Harmless error standard for voir dire error | Question could bias jurors and relieve burden of proof | Any prejudice was mitigated by closing arguments and instructions | Error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilchrist v. State, 340 Md. 606 (1995) (waiver when objecting party accepts jury only if directly about composition of jury)
- Glover v. State, 273 Md. 448 (1975) (objection to venire selected not from proper source; relates to composition of jury)
- Neusbaum v. State, 156 Md. 149 (1928) (waiver where taint on entire venire; offer of new panel matters)
- Couser v. State, 282 Md. 125 (1978) (unrelated jury-notes inquiry can preserve objection)
- McFadden v. State, 197 Md.App. 238 (2011) (distinguishes between objections to proposed vs. unpropounded voir dire questions)
- Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011) (CSI-like instruction deemed error in voir dire or trial)
- Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011) (discusses error harmlessness in criminal trials)
- Donaldson v. State, 416 Md. 467 (2010) (curative effect of proper jury instructions after error)
- Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145 (2005) (importance of proper instructions to mitigate voir dire error)
- Fowlkes v. State, 117 Md.App. 573 (1997) (distinguishes waiver when a prejudicial voir dire question is unpropounded)