## Facts

- Cervante Pearson was tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on drug-related offenses.
- The State’s case depended largely on testimony from law-enforcement officers.
- Before voir dire, Pearson’s co-defendant requested questions asking whether any prospective juror (or close associate) had been a victim of a crime and whether any prospective juror had been a member of a law-enforcement agency.
- The trial court declined to ask the requested questions and did not substitute questions aimed at uncovering strong feelings about the charged crime or bias arising from law-enforcement affiliation.
- A jury convicted Pearson; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, upon request, a trial court must ask during voir dire whether any prospective juror has ever been the victim of a crime (or has close associates who were).
2. Whether, upon request, a trial court must ask during voir dire whether any prospective juror has ever been a member of a law-enforcement agency when the State’s witnesses are law-enforcement officers or the case is likely to turn on their testimony.
3. Whether, upon request, a trial court must ask a question directed to whether jurors have strong feelings about the specific crime charged.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held a trial court need not ask a broad “victim of a crime” question during voir dire.
- The court held that, upon request, a trial court must ask whether any prospective juror has strong feelings about the specific crime charged.
- The court held that, upon request, a trial court must ask whether any prospective juror has ever been a member of a law-enforcement agency when the State’s case is reasonably likely to rest on law-enforcement testimony.
- Because the trial court failed to ask the required questions in the circumstances presented, the error required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- In Maryland, the sole purpose of voir dire is to uncover bias amounting to cause for disqualification, not to facilitate peremptory challenges.
- A requested voir dire question must be asked when it is directed at uncovering disqualifying bias and is reasonably likely to reveal such bias.
- A broad inquiry into whether a juror (or associates) was ever a crime victim is not mandatory because it is not sufficiently targeted to reveal disqualifying bias tied to the charged offense.
- Upon request, a court must inquire whether prospective jurors have strong feelings about the specific crime charged because such feelings may reflect a disqualifying state of mind.
- When law-enforcement testimony is central to the prosecution, prior membership in a law-enforcement agency is a potential source of disqualifying bias; upon request, a court must ask about such membership.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the trial judge, despite a request, failed to ask voir dire questions required to identify disqualifying bias: whether jurors had strong feelings about the charged drug offense and whether any juror had prior law-enforcement membership in a case likely to depend on police testimony, while clarifying that a broad crime-victim question is not required.


Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350, 86 A.3d 1232 (2014)