GORDON ALEXANDER COLLINS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Moylan, August 30, 2018,
Voir Dire – Improper voir dire is not automatically considered prejudicial

(Concur – Graeff – In judgment only)

Facts:
Gordon Collins was charged with 1st degree burglary and related crimes in Anne Arundel County.
During jury selection, Collins requested that the prospective jurors be asked whether or not they had “strong feelings” about the crimes of burglary or theft.
However, the judge instead asked the jurors whether or not they had “strong feelings about the offense of burglary to the point where you could not render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence.”
The judge then asked several questions regarding whether any had “preconceived feelings” about the issues, whether anyone would allow “any other emotion to influence your verdict,” whether anyone had been accused of or a victim/witness to a crime, and whether anyone had “any other reason” that they could not be a fair and impartial juror.
Collins was convicted on all counts after 40 minutes of jury deliberation.
Collins appealed, arguing that the judge’s jury-selection questions were improper because it left it up to the juror to decide whether they could be fair and impartial.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals held that, even though the first question was improper, because the judge also asked a number of other questions that would have revealed “strong feelings” about the crimes, the questions as a whole did not require a new trial.