Collier v. State

1

JEROME COLLIER v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 780-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland^[*]

May 16, 2023

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 120023005

Berger, Albright, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[**]

Kenney, J.

A jury, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, convicted Jerome Collier, appellant, of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, use of a firearm in a crime of violence, and carrying a handgun. The court sentenced him to a total term of life plus ten years' imprisonment.

In this appeal, he presents three questions, which we have rephrased for clarity:

1. Did the manner in which the trial court posed its "strong feelings" question during voir dire require each prospective juror to evaluate his or her own potential bias, thereby violating Maryland precedent?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to rephrase a voir dire inquiry that asked prospective jurors whether they either had experience in law enforcement or would give more or less weight to the testimony of a police officer?

3. Did the trial court err in limiting Collier's cross-examination of a witness regarding the victim's alleged criminal background?

Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

In the evening hours of October 24, 2019, Dana Brown was shot and killed near the 1800 block of Westwood Avenue in Baltimore. Collier was later implicated as the shooter. He was subsequently arrested and charged with murder and various firearm offenses. Following a jury trial, Collier was convicted and sentenced. This timely appeal followed. Additional facts will be supplied in the discussion below.

DISCUSSION

I.

Collier's first claim of error concerns an issue that arose during voir dire of prospective jurors when the trial court posed the following question:

Now, as I indicated, ladies and gentlemen, the State has charged the defendant, Mr. Collier, with murder and a number of handgun related crimes. These crimes are often in the news here in Baltimore City, they're on the minds and often they're involved in the discussions people have here in Baltimore City. So the next question is, and you should stand if you have any strong personal feelings about the charge of murder in the first degree and gun related crimes. Stand up if you have strong feelings about them?

Several prospective jurors stood in response to the trial court's question. For each of those who stood, the court recorded the prospective juror's number, verified the answer, and then asked if his or her strong feelings would interfere with his or her ability to be fair and impartial. After completing that process for each of the prospective jurors who stood the court reminded all of them that they had "taken an oath to be honest" and again asked if any had "strong feelings about [the] charges[.]" Several additional prospective jurors stood in response, and, for each of those, the court recorded the prospective juror's number, verified each's answer, and then asked if his or her strong feelings would interfere with his or her ability to be fair and impartial. The court then held a bench conference, during which it struck all prospective jurors who had indicated that their strong feelings would affect their ability to be fair and impartial.

The following day, the parties returned to court for the continuation of voir dire with a second panel of prospective jurors.^[1] At the beginning of those proceedings, defense counsel objected to the manner in which the trial court had asked the "strong feelings" question. Defense counsel maintained that the court should have questioned each juror individually at the bench. The court overruled the objection and proceeded with voir dire. The court posed the "strong feelings" question as follows:

Now, again ladies and gentlemen, as I've indicated, Mr. Collier is charged with the crime of first degree murder and a number of handgun related charges. Do any of you have strong feelings about those crimes, that is murder and handgun crimes? If you have strong feelings about them, please stand at this time.

Several stood in response to the trial court's question. The court again recorded the prospective juror's number, verified his or her answer, and then asked if his or her strong feelings would interfere with his or her ability to be fair and impartial. After completing that process, the court held a bench conference and struck all the prospective jurors who had indicated that their strong feelings would affect his or her ability to be fair and impartial.

Parties' contentions

Collier contends that the trial court erred in asking the "strong feelings" inquiry in the manner in which it did. More particularly, he argues that by posing its question in two parts - by first asking whether any prospective juror had strong feelings about the charged crimes, and then asking whether each juror could be impartial despite those feelings - the court violated the Supreme Court of Maryland's^[2] holdings in Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 (2000) and Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014) by improperly "requir[ing] each prospective juror to evaluate his or her own potential bias." He contends that those who indicated that they had strong feelings about the charged crimes should have been asked follow-up questions about the details of "relevant experiences or associations[,]" and that the failure to do so deprived the court of information necessary to decide whether they were able to conduct themselves impartially.

The State contends that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in asking the "strong feelings" question in the manner that it did and that doing so was consistent with the relevant case law. In addition, the State argues that any error the court may have made was harmless because no prospective juror responding to the strong feelings question was ultimately selected as a juror.

Analysis

"Voir dire, the process by which prospective jurors are examined to determine whether cause for disqualification exists, is the mechanism whereby the right to a fair and impartial jury guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, is given substance." Dingle, 361 Md. at 9 (internal citations and footnote omitted). "To that end, [o]n request, a trial court must ask a voir dire question if and only if the voir dire question is reasonably likely to reveal specific cause for disqualification." Collins v. State, 463 Md. 372, 376 (2019) (citation and quotations omitted). We review "for abuse of discretion a trial court's rulings on the record of the voir dire process as a whole[.]" Id. at 391 (citation and quotations omitted).

In Dingle, the Court analyzed the propriety of compound voir dire questions. Dingle, 361 Md. at 3-4. There, the defendant asked the trial court to pose a series of voir dire questions related to certain experiences or associations of the prospective jurors. Id. at 3. The court did so by merging each of the requested questions with the State's suggestion that the court inquire into whether the experiences or associations would affect his or her ability to be fair and impartial. Id. at 3-4. The court posed several two-part questions to the venire, asking first whether the member had a particular experience or association and then whether that experience or association would affect his or her ability to be fair and impartial. Id. The prospective jurors were asked to stand only if they answered "yes" to both parts of the inquiry. Id. at 4-5.

The defendant was convicted. This Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, id. at 21, and the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed, noting that, during the voir dire of prospective jurors, it is the trial court - not the prospective juror - who must decide whether there is a cause for disqualification of a prospective juror. Id. at 14-15. According to that Court, the trial judge had "failed to appreciate that, should there be a challenge, he had the responsibility to decide, based upon the circumstances then existing, . . . whether any of the venire persons occupying the questioned status or having the questioned experiences should be discharged for cause[.]" Id. at 17. By not requiring "an answer to be given to the question as to the existence of the status or experience unless accompanied by a statement of partiality, the trial judge was precluded from discharging his responsibility, i.e., exercising discretion, and, at the same time, the [defendant] was denied the opportunity to discover and challenge venire persons who might be biased." Id.

In Pearson v. State, the Supreme Court of Maryland held that, upon request, a trial court must ask whether a prospective juror has "strong feelings" about the charged crime. 437 Md. at 354. According to the Court, when posing that question, the trial court must avoid phrasing it in a manner that required the prospective jurors to evaluate their own potential bias. Id. at 363-64. In Pearson, the trial court had asked prospective jurors: '"Does any member of the panel hold such strong feelings regarding violations of the narcotics laws that it would be difficult for you to fairly and impartially weigh the facts of this trial where narcotics violations have been alleged?"' Id. at 355. The Court held as in Dingle, that the phrasing of the question "shifted responsibility to decide a prospective juror's bias from the trial court to the prospective juror[.]" Id. at 363. The Court stated that the trial court should have posed the question as: "Do any of you have strong feelings about [the crime with which the defendant is charged]?" Id. The Court, cautioning that a prospective juror is not automatically disqualified if he or...