holding that trial court abused its discretion in refusing to ask whether the charges of second degree assault and third degree sexual offense against a minor stirred tip such strong emotional feelings that it would affect the veniremen’s impartiality
How later courts described this case
- holding that trial court abused its discretion in refusing to ask whether the charges of second degree assault and third degree sexual offense against a minor stirred tip such strong emotional feelings that it would affect the veniremen’s impartiality
- noting that, “[u]nder the statutory framework,” the trial court must “engage in a two-step analysis” and make specific findings before requiring an individual to register as a “sexually violent predator”
- This Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to ask a voir dire question that the defendant phrased as follows: “Do the charges [i.e., child molestation] stir up strong emotional feelings in you that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?”
- applying Thomas to sexual abuse related crimes
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BATTAGLIA, J.
While I concur with the majority’s reasoning as to Part II, I must dissent from the majority’s decision in Part III regarding voir dire for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in State v. Thomas, 369 Md. 202 , 798 A.2d 566 (2002). Accord *14 ingly, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.