Curtin v. State, 393 Md. 593

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to ask prospective jurors whether they had strong feelings about handgun use that would prevent them from rendering a fair and impartial verdict. The court held that the proposed question was not required because an affirmative response would not establish a basis for a strike for cause in this armed-robbery case, and it affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to ask the proposed handgun-bias question because an affirmative response would not have provided a basis for a challenge for cause in this case.
2. The Court of Special Appeals applied the correct standard: a proposed voir dire question must be asked when there is a reasonable likelihood that it will reveal a legally disqualifying basis for juror exclusion, not merely an attitude that might assist in exercising a peremptory challenge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to ask a proposed voir dire question concerning prospective jurors' strong feelings about handgun use.
2. Whether the Court of Special Appeals applied the correct standard in determining whether the requested voir dire question was required.

Disposition

affirmed