NORVEL B. THOMPSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Wright, August 31, 2016,
Voir Dire – On request, where firearm possession is charged, a court must ask voir dire regarding prospective jurors’ strong feelings toward firearms.
While a contrast is drawn with Uzzle, the difference is more about the shift in the Court of Appeals than any actual difference in the questions (unless feelings about gun possession really is that must different than feelings about guns. People don’t feel guns; people feel people with guns?)
Voir Dire – “Strong feelings” questions generally about rape, burglary, or assault would be appropriate when requested, if those crimes have been charged.
Voir Dire – On the other hand, Voir Dire concerning questions covered by jury instructions is inappropriate
Hicks – Once competency has been raised, good cause to continue past Hicks date to seek medical/psychiatric evaluation (even where not technically necessary)
Ex Post Facto – Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights is to be read in pari materia with the Ex Post Facto Clause of the US Constitution.
Ex Post Facto – To be a violation of Ex Post Facto Clause, a law must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.
Ex Post Facto – There is no violation of Ex Post Facto where a law prohibits possession of a firearm based on convictions occurring prior to the enactment of the law.