### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASH

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

v. DWIGHT A. FINCH, DIVISION II

Petitioner,

Respondent. F? F 

## COURT OF APPEALS
r 2011i MAY 20 

### Aid 10: 55

No. 44637 -

5 -II

PUBLISHED OPINION
WORSWICK, C.J. — 

### In this interlocutory appeal, which is linked with State v.A. W.,No. 45337 -1 - II (Wash. May 20, 2014), the superior court ordered ajuvenile to submit to polygraph testing.' A.W.,2 a minor, 3 

### pleaded guilty to first degree child molestation and received a special

sex offender disposition alternative (SSODA). 4 

### During treatment, A.W. disclosed that Dwight 

### Finch had sexually assaulted him. The State charged Finch with first degree child rape and first degree child molestation, and the superior court, over the State' s objection, ordered A.W. to
submit to the polygraph test that the parties dispute on appeal. we granted discretionary 

### interlocutory review ofthat decision, Finch moved to intervene in A.W.' sjuvenile disposition. Finch requested thejuvenile court to order A.W. to take the disputed polygraph test to determine
1 This case concerns the superior court' s order. State v. A.W. concerns the juvenile court' s order. 

### 2 We use initials to protect A.W.'s privacy. General Order 2011 - 1 ofDivision II, In Re: The Use OfInitials Or Pseudonyms For Child Witnesses In Sex Crime Cases, ( Wash. Ct. App.), available at 

### http: / /

www.courts.wa.gov / appellate trial_courts /. 

### 3 A.W. was 12 to 13 years old at the time ofhis offense.
4 RCW 13. 40. 162.No. 44637 - 5 -II 

### the truthfulness ofhis allegations against Finch, either by granting Finch' s motion to intervene, or on its own motion in the interest ofjustice. Thejuvenile court entered an order requiring A.W. to submit to the disputed polygraph test. 

### In this case, the State appeals the superior court order requiring A.W. to submit to the 

### polygraph test ordered for the purposes of ascertaining the truthfulness ofA.W.'s allegations 

### against Finch. Additionally, the State asks us to remand this case to a differentjudge. Because the superior court exceeded its authority by ordering the disputed polygraph test, we hold that the superior court abused its discretion, and we reverse the polygraph order. To maintain the appearance offairness, we remand this case to a differentjudge. FACTS A. State v. A. W, with Finch as Intervenor 

### A.W. pleaded guilty to first degree child molestation. Thejuvenile court imposed a SSODA that imposed conditions including:

1 . ] [ O] bey all ... laws. 2.] Participate in weekly treatment. 3.] 

### Treatment compliance could be monitored every 6 months through a polygraph, if available. CP (A.W.) at 18, 22. The juvenile court modified the polygraph test condition from the boilerplate language, which had stated, " Treatment compliance shall be monitored every 6
months through a polygraph." CP (A.W.) at 22.No. 44637 - 5 - II 

### While undergoing court ordered sex offendertreatment, A.W.told his therapist that Finch
committed sex acts against him.

### 5 A.W.' s therapist informed the State about A.W.' s disclosure,
and the State charged Finch with first degree child rape6 and first degree child molestation. B. State v. Finch 

### After being charged, Finch submitted to a polygraph test. The polygraph examiner concluded that Finch was truthful when he denied A.W.' s allegations. Finch then moved the 

### superior court to use thejuvenile court' s authority over A.W.' s SSODA in State v.A. W.to 

### require A.W.to submit to polygraph testing, the purpose ofwhich would be to askA.W. about his allegations against Finch. 8 The State opposed Finch' s motion. 

### The superior court could not clearly remember why it had modified the SSODA's 

### polygraph test provision from the boilerplate language. Because ofthis, and because the superior 

### court wanted to know why A.W.'s therapist decided against giving A.W. regular polygraph tests, the superior court ordered A.W.' s therapist to appear in State v. Finch and show cause as to why he had not given A.W. regular polygraph tests. 9 CP ( Finch) at 33. In response to the superior 

### court' s question, A.W.' s therapist provided the following explanation as to why he did not give regular polygraph tests to A.W.:


### 5 Finch was previously convicted oftwo sex offenses against afemale child. 6 RCW 9A.44. 073. 7 RCW 9A.44. 083. 8 The same judge presided over State v. Finch and State v.A.W. 9 A.W. did not appear at this proceeding.No. 44637 - 5 -II Polygraph tests are] considered coercive for use in adolescents because of their 

### developmental stages, because of their personality formation, because of the conditions of beneficence and nonmaleficence, which are [ sic] either they must 

### show benefit and [ sic] they must show no harm. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) ( Finch) (Nov. 7, 2012) at 7. C] hildren believe that [the polygraph tests are] detecting lies when they' re really not. 

### What polygraphs really detect is physiological responses, but they' re called lie detectors, and so the children automatically think they' re detecting lies, which is the coercive part. VRP (Finch) (Nov. 7, 2012) at 9. A.W.' s therapist also explained:

All these cases —

### all these decisions are made on a case - by - case basis, and [A.W.] falls into a category of youth that we would call — that he has sexual behavioral 

### problems, and because ofhis developmental maturity, what the literature suggests is that there can be harm when you coerce a person that age. VRP ( Finch) (Nov. 7, 2012) at 9. The superior court entered an order in State v. Finch requiring A.W. to take the polygraph 

### test. The State requested discretionary interlocutory review in State v. Finch. We stayed the superior court' s order, and granted discretionary interlocutory review because the superior court
committed " probable error that substantially alters the status quo." 

### Ruling Granting Review, State v. Finch, No. 44637 - 5 -II, at 1 ( Wash. Ct. App. May 16, 2013); see RAP 2. 3( b)( 2). C. Finch' s Intervention in State v. A. W. 

### After we stayed and granted discretionary review ofthe superior court's order in State v. Finch, Finch moved to intervene in State v.A.W. ,asking thejuvenile court for another order

4No. 44637 - 5 -II 

## requiringA.W.totakethe same polygraphtest aswas ordered in State v.Finch.10 Finch's motionto intervene alleged that by accusing Finch ofsex crimes, A.W. committed the crime of false reporting, 11 and, thus, violated the SSODA condition requiring A.W. to " obey all ... laws." CP ( A.W.) at 18. In his motion, Finch requested to intervene in State v. A. W " 

### for [the] very limited purpose [ of asking] the Court to require the already ordered polygraph. "12 CP ( A.W.) at 35 -36. Finch asked the juvenile court to either grant Finch' s motion to order A.W. to take the polygraph test, or order the polygraph test on its own motion in the interest ofjustice. 

### Thejuvenile court set a hearing on Finch' s motion to intervene. A.W.'s counsel 

### appeared atthe hearing andjoined the State in opposing the motion. The State filed a declaration 

## stating its refusal to stipulate to the admission ofany polygraph tests in State v. Finch. The State also requested sanctions against Finch' s trial counsel. 

### Atthe hearing, thejuvenile court stated that it recalled why it had modified the polygraph test provision ofA.W.' s SSODA from the boilerplate language:

I deferred to the treatment provider' s ... discretion, and yet at that time I didn' t know that the treatment provider . . . said, " I never give polygraphs. I' ll never give them" ... [ t] o a juvenile. So then I thought, well, if I had known that at the time, then I might have notjust signed off on it.... It would just be nice for the



### 10 Finch filed his motion to intervene in the form of a " complaint" against A.W. for A.W.' s alleged SSODA violation. CP (A.W.) at 35. But Finch' s motion was actually a motion to intervene in State v. A. W. Finch also filed a " motion to compel polygraph to review alleged violation of SSODA sentence," in which he also moved to intervene in State v.A. W. CP (A.W.) at 38. 

### 11 RCW 9A.84.040.
12 

### It is unclear whether Finch meant thatthe polygraph was ( 1) already ordered in State v. Finch 

### or (2) already ordered as part ofthe SSODA. Finch argued both below. 5No. 44637 - 5 -II Court to know those kind [ sic] of things rather than sign an order that that line 

### really has no effect when you say " could." CP (A.W.) at 260 - 61. 

### Thejuvenile court entered a second order requiring A.W.to take the polygraph test. This order specified that a portion ofthe polygraph test would ask A.W. about his allegations against Finch, and directed the polygraph test' s results to be sent to thejuvenile court for in camera 

### review. The State and A.W. requested discretionary interlocutory review ofthis order. We 

## accepted reviewand stayedthe orderin State v.A.W.pending furtherorder ofthis court.13 Ruling Staying Order, State v. A. W., No. 45337 -1 - II ( Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2013); Ruling 

### Accelerating Review, State v.A.W, No. 45337 -1 - II ( Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2013). ANALYSIS I. AUTHORITY To GRANT FINCH' S DISCOVERY REQUEST UNDER A.W.' s SSODA Finch argues that the Superior court had authority to order A.W. to take a polygraph test in this case under A.W' s SSODA. The State argues that A.W.'s SSODA did not authorize the 

### superior court to order the polygraph test. Without determining the authority ofthe superior court here to order compliance in a separatejuvenile case, we agree that A.W.' s SSODA did not authorize the superior court to order a polygraph test.

A.W.' s SSODA states, " Treatment compliance could be monitored every 6 months through a polygraph, if available." CP ( A.W.) at 22. This language limits the scope of potential 

### polygraph tests to questions confirming A.W' s compliance with treatment.

13 The Washington State Department of Commerce filed an amicus brief in this case.

6No. 44637 - 5 - II Here, A.W.' s therapist explained that he did not give polygraph tests to A.W. because polygraph tests are] considered coercive for use in adolescents because of their developmental stages ... [ 

### T]he children automatically think they' re detecting lies, which is the coercive part." See VRP ( Finch) (Nov. 7, 2012) at 7, 9. A.W.' s therapist also said, "[ A] 11 these decisions are
made on a case -



### by - case basis, and [ A.W.] falls into a category of youth that we would call — that 

### he has sexual behavioral problems, and because of his developmental maturity, what the literature suggests is that there can be harm when you coerce a person that age." VRP (Finch) Nov. 7, 2012) at 9. Thus, polygraph tests were not conducive to A.W.' s therapy. 

### Ordering A.W.to take the polygraph test was designed notto ensure compliance with treatment, but rather to ensure the truthfulness of A.W.' s allegations against Finch. Thus, 

## ordering A.W.to take the polygraph test exceeded the scope ofA.W.'s SSODA because it did not pertain to ensuring A.W.'s treatment compliance.

II. AUTHORITY To GRANT FINCH' S DISCOVERY REQUEST UNDER CRR 4.7 

### The State argues that the superior court exceeded its authority by granting Finch' s request to order A.W. to take the disputed polygraph test. We agree. 

### The superior court did not identify its authority for granting Finch' s polygraph request. 

### Nor could any party at oral argument give us authority forthe superior court' s decision. Because Finch' s request was a motion to compel third party discovery, we analyze the superior court' s order under CrR 4. 7. 

### We will not disturb a superior court' s discovery decision under CrR 4.7 absent an abuse
of discretion. State v. Garcia-Salgado, 170 Wn.2d 176, 183, 240 P. 3d 153 ( 2010). A superior court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable

7No. 44637 - 5 -II
grounds or for untenable reasons. State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654, 71 P. 3d 638 ( 2003). A decision is exercised for untenable reasons ifthe facts do not meet the requirements ofthe applicable legal standard. State v. Dye, 178 Wn.2d 541, 548, 309 P. 3d 1192 (2013). 

### CrR 4.7 governs a superior court' s discovery orders. CrR 4.7(d) allows a superior court 

### to subpoena athird party to provide material or information, if it "would be discoverable if in the knowledge, possession or control of the prosecuting attorney." CrR 4.7 lists specific items that 

### the prosecuting attorney must provide in discovery. When the defendant requests an unlisted item, CrR 4.7( e)( 1) states: 

### Upon a showing ofmateriality to thepreparation ofthe defense, and ifthe request is reasonable, the court in its discretion may require disclosure to the defendant of the relevant material and information not [listed]. Emphasis added.) 

### A showing of materiality to the preparation ofthe defense requires the defendant to provide some factual basis making it reasonably likelythat the requested evidence would give rise to information material to the defense. State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822, 828, 830, 845 P. 2d 1017 ( 1993). 

### A superior court abuses its discretion by ordering discretionary 

### discovery without the defendant providing this factual basis. See Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d at 828, 830. 

### We hold that the superior court abused its discretion by granting Finch's request to order A.W. to take the disputed polygraph test because Finch did not provide some factual basis 

### making it reasonably likelythat the disputed polygraph test results would give rise to information material to the defense. We base our decision on three grounds. First, the polygraph test results would be inadmissible in Finch' s trial. Polygraph tests are inadmissible at trial unless both the State and the defendant stipulate to its admission, and the

8No. 44637 - 5 -II State will not stipulate to the 'admission of the disputed polygraph test results here. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 860, 83 P.3d 970 (2004). Second, the charges against Finch would not be dismissed, even ifA.W. were to fail the disputed polygraph test. Such a result would not move the State to dismiss the charges against Finch. Furthermore, such a result would not allow the superior court to dismiss the charges on Finch' s motion because a disputed issue ofmaterial fact would remain as to the polygraph test' s 

### reliability. CrR 8. 3 ( stating that a superior court cannot dismiss a case on a defendant' s motion
unless there are no material disputed facts); see Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 860 -61 ( stating that polygraph tests are unreliable). 

### Third,the polygraph test results would provide Finch with only highly unreliable 

### information. Courts have consistently held polygraph tests to be unreliable. In re Det. of Hawkins, 169 Wn.2d 796, 803, 238 P. 3d 1175 ( 2010); Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 860 -61. This 

### unreliability is exacerbated when the polygraph test is administered to a sex crime victim. Lacey M. Sloan, Revictimization by Polygraph: The Practice ofPolygraphing Survivors ofSexual Assault, 14 J. MED. & L. 255, 259 ( 1995). As explained in a recent article: The biggest problem with polygraph tests is that there are no known physiological 

### responses that directly correspond with deception. An examinee' s physiological 

### responses are often governed by whether the examinee believes the test is accurate, and from the atmosphere created 

### by the examiner. Furthermore, external stimuli may cause a change in physiological responses, such as a 

### surprising question or a noise outside the room. Likewise, stress, anxiety, and fear, all controlled 

### by the autonomic nervous system, cause changes in the physiological responses of an examinee. 

### Shelley Gupta,A Polygraph Test Wouldn' t Know the Truth ifit Hit itwith a Brick:Perpetuation ofthe Normalization ofViolence Against Women, 34 WOMEN' S RTS. L.REP. 282, 286 - 87 (2013) emphasis added) ( citing Leonard Saxe & 

### Gershon Ben - Shakhar, Admissibility ofPolygraph Tests The Application ofScientific Standards Post - Daubert, 5 PSYCHOL. PUB. PoL' Y & L. 203,

9No. 44637 - 5 -II 

### 211 ( 1999) and Leonard Saxe, Detection ofDeception: Polygraph and Integrity Tests, 3 CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOL. SCI. 69, 70 - 71 ( 1994)). 

### The negative emotions that accompany being a sex crime victim, such as stress, anxiety, 

### and fear, can further compromise the reliability of an already unreliable polygraph test by distorting the results and creating false positives. See Sloan, 14 J. MED. & L. at 259. Thus, the 

### polygraph test ofA.W., an alleged sex crime victim, would have highly unreliable results, and it 

### is not reasonably likely that such unreliable information would give rise to information material to the defense. 

### We hold that Finch did not provide some factual basis making it reasonably likely that the disputed polygraph test would give rise to information material to the defense because the disputed polygraph test results would be inadmissible, would not lead to dismissal, and would be 

### highly unreliable. Thus, the superior court abused its discretion under CrR 4.7 by granting Finch' s discretionary discovery request to order A.W. to take the disputed polygraph test. 14 III. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS 

### Finally,the State argues that we should remand this case to a differentjudge underthe appearance of fairness doctrine. We agree. 

### Ajudicial proceeding satisfies the appearance offairness doctrine ifa reasonably prudent and disinterested person would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing. State v. Bilal, 77 Wn. App. 720, 722, 893 P. 2d 674 ( 1995). We analyze whether a 

### judge' s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under an objective test that assumes a 

### 14 CrR 4.7(e) allows the superior courtto grant only reasonable discovery requests. Given polygraph tests' unreliability when given to sex crime victims, we cannot currently conceive how a defendant' s request that the alleged sex crime victim take a polygraph test could ever be reasonable. 10No. 44637 - 5 -II reasonable person to know and understand all relevant facts. Sherman v. State, 128 Wn.2d 164, 205 -06, 905 P.2d 355 ( 1995). 

### The party must produce sufficient evidence demonstrating actual or potential bias, such as personal or pecuniary interest on the part ofthejudge; mere speculation 

### is not enough. In re Pers. Restraint ofHaynes, 100 Wn.App. 366, 377 n.23, 996 P.2d 637 2000). 

### Here, thejudge apparently used hisjuvenile court authority over A.W.'s SSODA in State v.A.W.to order a polygraph test to investigate A.W.' s allegations in State v. Finch. IfState v. 

### Finch proceeds to trial, A.W.would have to appearto testify before this samejudge who 

### improperly allowed Finch to intervene in A.W'sjuvenile disposition, and who ordered A.Wto take a polygraph test without proper authority. A reasonably prudent and disinterested person who knew these facts would conclude that thejudge ordering A.W. to take a polygraph to investigate the criminal case in which A.W. is the victim, in spite of a therapist' s testimony that polygraph tests could be harmful to A.W., could not give all parties a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing. We hold that the judge' s dual role asjudge for A.W.' sjuvenile disposition and Finch' s 

### criminal case, thejudge' s inability to separate these two roles, and thejudge' s attempts to investigate the truth ofA.W.' s allegations in State v. Finch, combine such that a reasonably prudent and disinterested person who knew these facts would question whether thejudge could 

### actfairly in presiding overthis case. Thus, we remand this case to a differentjudge to maintain the appearance offairness.

11No. 44637 - 5 - II 

### We reverse the polygraph order because the superior court exceeded its authority by 

### granting Finch' s request to order A.W.to take the disputed polygraph test. We remand this case to a differentjudge. In light ofthis conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to consider the State' s remaining arguments.

We concur:

12