The State countered that the issue was raised on cross-examination and that the pattern jury instructions did not adequately cover the issue. After reviewing Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 922 A.2d 620 (2007), cert. denied, Evans v. State, 400 Md. 648, 929 A.2d 890 (2007), the trial judge overruled the objection, stating that the “question could [ ] bear in the mind of the jurors.” Voir dire questioning has become a popular time for prosecutors to attempt to limit the influence of the “CSI effect” on perspective jurors.