Tshibangu Kazadi v. State of Maryland, No. 779, September Term 2017. Opinion by Thieme, Raymond G., Jr., J. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned). DISCOVERY – MD. RULE 4-263(d)(6)(A) -- WITNESSES – MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF IMMIGRATION-RELATED INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS AS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE. The motion court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying a defense motion to compel disclosure of information and documents regarding the immigration status of a prosecution witness, where there was no evidence of a “quid pro quo” or other agreement under which the witness or her minor son obtained or expected an immigration benefit for identifying the defendant as the person who shot the victim. CROSS-EXAMINATION – WITNESSES – PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING IMPEACHMENT BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to preclude the defense from cross-examining prosecution witnesses about their immigration status and a pending deportation order, where neither witness was a suspect in the crime for which the defendant was on trial and there was no promise or benefit extended by the State concerning immigration. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 116042016 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 779 September Term, 2017 ______________________________________ TSHIBANGU KAZADI v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________ Graeff, Beachley Thieme, Raymond G., Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Thieme, J. ______________________________________ Filed: February 4, 2019 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2019-02-04 15:25-05:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk On the evening of August 18, 2015, in an alley behind the 200 block of North Conkling Street in Baltimore, twenty-one-year-old Brandon Smith was fatally shot. The State tried appellant Tshibangu Kazadi, a resident of that street, for Mr. Smith’s murder. Critical to that prosecution was eyewitness testimony by two of appellant’s next-door neighbors – a mother and her minor son, whose immigration statuses were the subject of discovery and cross-examination rulings that are challenged in this appeal. After both witnesses identified appellant as the killer, a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted appellant of second degree murder and using a firearm in a crime of violence. Appellant was sentenced for the murder to thirty years, with all but twenty-five years suspended, consecutive to fifteen years for the weapon offense, the first five of that served without parole, for a total executed time of forty years. Appellant challenges his convictions on three grounds, which we have re-ordered chronologically as follows: 1. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in refusing to propound Mr. Kazadi’s requested voir dire questions? 2. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion to compel discovery and, thereafter, in refusing to allow defense counsel to question the State’s two main witnesses regarding their immigration issues? 3. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in refusing to propound defense counsel’s proposed jury instruction on eyewitness identification? ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals