The Maryland Appellate Court has reversed a murder conviction because the trial court declined to conduct voir dire into bias against homosexuality

Muldrow’s case was one where the evidence risked arousing jurors’ bias against homosexuality. Although the State contends that “Muldrow overstates the significance of [his] rendezvous [with Duffin]” and that “no one suggested that [the rendezvous]” was linked to his innocence or guilt, the record reveals the contrary. At trial, Detective Buckingham testified that Muldrow had admitted having sexual relations with Duffin. The State also played Muldrow’s interrogation for the jury. In the interrogation, Muldrow disclosed that he had sex with Duffin, that Duffin had “nothing on in the morning,” that they only had sex in the bed, that it was a “one night stand,” that he did not think Duffin would call him because he thought that Duffin “didn’t like what [he] had,” that they did not use a condom, and that Duffin had “sucked [his] dick” before he got in the shower and left. Detective Buckingham also asked Muldrow if Duffin had assaulted or raped him.

The sexual encounter came up again in closing arguments. In its closing, the State alluded to Muldrow’s potential motive for Duffin’s murder:

[U]nder Maryland law[,] no motive is required. It’s possible that the defendant was upset that [Duffin] didn’t like what he had. Do you remember when he said that to Detective Buckingham, “I thought he didn’t like what I had.”

It’s also possible that he felt guilty for having engaged in what he had done with Mr. Duffin. And it’s also possible that he planned to rob . . . Duffin before he even got there.

But what doesn’t matter is whatever the reason was. Motive is not an element of any of the crimes. And I am not required to prove motive. It makes no difference. (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, the State explicitly linked Muldrow and Duffin’s “rendezvous” with Muldrow’s guilt by connecting their sexual encounter with motive for murder.

It is immaterial that Muldrow identified as straight. A juror could reasonably hear the evidence at trial and assume that Muldrow was homosexual or identified with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. It is the jury’s perception of the defendant as homosexual that is the relevant consideration.

Impact of holding

To be clear, we are not holding that every defendant who requests a voir dire question about bias against homosexuality must be granted one. Instead—keeping in mind that, unlike race, sexual orientation is not a visible identity and will be known to jurors only if revealed directly or indirectly—the question must be asked only when the facts and circumstances of the trial warrant. Thus, the question will be required when the evidence introduced at trial risks arousing prospective jurors’ bias against homosexuality with regards to the defendant, the victim, or witnesses