Landon v. Zorn10/6/2005
presented in this matter?
We begin by noting that, in Maryland, the scope of voir dire is limited. The purpose of voir dire is to expose "the existence of cause for disqualification . . . it does not encompass asking questions designed to elicit information in aid of deciding on peremptory challenges." Crouser v. State, 282 Md. 125, 138-39, 383 A.2d 389, 396-97 (1978) (quoting Mason v. State, 242 Md. 707, 709-710, 218 A.2d 682, 684 (1966)). "Questions not directed to a specific ground for disqualification but which are speculative, inquisitorial, catechising or `fishing,' asked in the aid of deciding on peremptory challenges," are not permitted. Davis v. State, 333 Md. 27, 34, 633 A.2d 867, 871 (1993) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, "it is well settled that the scope of the questions propounded to jurors on their voir dire is largely in the discretion of the trial court." Casey v. Roman Catholic Arch., 217 Md. 595, 605, 143 A.2d 627, 631 (1958); Langley v. State, 281 Md. 337, 341, 378 A.2d 1338, 1340 (1977); Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 187, 453 A.2d 1218, 1229 (1983); Davis, 333 Md. at 34, 633 A.2d at 871 ; Williams v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 98 Md. App. 209, 212, 632 A.2d 505, 506 (1993); see also Thomas v. State, 139 Md. App. 188, 197, 775 A.2d 406, 412 (2001) (noting that "absent a clear abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's decision to ask or not ask a specific voir dire question. Our review of the voir dire process must be conducted on a case-by-case basis, accounting for the particular circumstances of each case. Rarely has an appellate court found abuses of discretion within the voir dire process.").
Failure to ask all of a litigant's proposed questions on voir dire is not an abuse of discretion, if the questions proposed were more than adequately covered by the court's voir dire examination. Miles v. State, 88 Md. App. 360, 381, 594 A.2d 1208, 1218 (1991), cert. denied, 325 Md. 94 (1991). The court may exercise its discretion by refusing "to ask questions that it deems are speculative or insufficiently tailored to the particular case at issue." Henry v. State 324 Md. 204, 221, 596 A.2d 1024, 1033 (1991). There are, however, limited areas of inquiry which we have held are mandatory when applicable. They are:
acial, ethnic and cultural bias, religious bias, predisposition as to the use of circumstantial evidence in capital cases, and placement of undue weight on police officer credibility . . . . hese mandatory areas of inquiry involve "potential biases or predispositions that prospective jurors may hold which, if present, would hinder their ability to objectively resolve the matter before them."
Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1, 11 n.8, 759 A.2d 819, 824 n.8 (2000) (internal citations omitted). The failure of a trial judge to give one of these questions, when applicable, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The Landons contend that the proposed voir dire question was designed to uncover potential prejudice against them and in favor of doctors in medical malpractice cases. The Landons characterize this inquiry as "a tort reform" question. At the outset of our analysis, it is important to note that we find it difficult to glean the subject of tort reform from the question proposed. Even so, we acknowledge that this Court has already addressed the issue of voir dire questions and tort reform in Kujawa v. Baltimore Transit Company, 224 Md. 195, 167 A.2d 96 (1961). The plaintiffs in Kujawa suffered personal injuries as a result of an automobile collision. Although the jury awarded the plaintiffs damages, the trial court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict due to the plaintiffs' failure to produ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|