Case Name: PEOPLE v. SMITH
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1995-05-26
Citations: 211 Mich. App. 233
Docket Number: Docket No. 149523
Parties: PEOPLE v SMITH
Judges: Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Brennan and J. M. Batzer, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 211
Pages: 233–238

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v SMITH
Docket No. 149523.
Submitted August 11, 1994, at Lansing.
Decided May 26, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.
Kerry J. Smith was convicted following a bench trial in the Jackson Circuit Court, Alexander C. Perlos, J., of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and was sentenced to three years’ probation, with seven days to be served in jail. The defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. The record does not support the defendant’s assertions that she did not waive the right to a jury trial on the record or sign a written waiver.
2. The prosecution erred in presenting evidence that indicated that the' defendant had taken and apparently failed a polygraph examination. The evidence was unfairly prejudicial to the defendant’s case because it provided supposedly scientific evidence of the defendant’s lack of credibility. Reversal of the defendant’s conviction is required.
3. The trial court’s findings were suflicient under MCR 2.517(A).
4. The trial court properly admitted testimony regarding what could be considered to be prior inappropriate sexual behavior by the defendant toward the complainant.
Reversed and remanded.
J.M. Batzer, J., dissenting, stated that although the evidence of the polygraph examination improperly was injected by the prosecutor, reversal is not required because this was a bench trial and the trial court stated that it was not influenced by the evidence. A trial court may be expected to ignore inadmissible evidence without being tainted in its decision making.
Criminal Law — Polygraph Examinations — Evidence.
A prosecutor’s injection of evidence indicating that a defendant was given a polygraph test and the result thereof requires the reversal of the defendant’s conviction where the evidence was unfairly prejudicial to the defendant’s case.
References
Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 1007.
See ALR Index under Lie Detectors.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Dennis Hurst, Prosecuting Attorney, and Christine Clancy, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Don Ferris, for the defendant on appeal.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Brennan and J. M. Batzer, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Brennan, J.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c(l)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(l)(a), and was sentenced to three years' probation, with seven days to be served in jail. She appeals as of right. We reverse.
Defendant's assertions that she never waived the right to a jury trial on the record or signed a written waiver are not supported by the record. A review of the circuit court docket sheet indicates that defendant waived the right to a jury trial on the record in open court. Additionally, the circuit court file contains a written waiver form signed by defendant. No error is indicated. MCR 6.402(B).
Defendant's conviction must be reversed because of the injection of polygraph test results into evidence. The mention of a polygraph examination was made by the prosecutor, who indicated that a detective's report regarding the interview of defendant was titled polygraph examination. The prosecutor also admitted that he filed a copy of the polygraph examination report in the circuit court's record. Although the prosecutor did not state that defendant failed the polygraph examination, defen dant's failure was apparent from the officer's testimony that he told defendant (during the polygraph examination) that he thought she was lying. Defendant's failure of the polygraph examination was also apparent from the fact that the test was administered before she had been charged with second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Although the circuit court later found that it had not been influenced by this information, it did question the officer regarding the number of polygraph tests he had performed in the past — a question apparently designed to measure the officer's expertise with the polygraph. This case presented a credibility contest. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor's injection of the polygraph testing and results was unfairly prejudicial to defendant's case because it provided supposedly scientific evidence of defendant's lack of credibility. Reversal of defendant's conviction is therefore required. People v Ray, 431 Mich 260; 430 NW2d 626 (1988); People v Kosters, 175 Mich App 748; 438 NW2d 651 (1989).
Although the circuit court's findings were brief, they established that it was aware of the relevant issues in the case and correctly applied the law on all but the polygraph issue. Hence, the findings were sufficient under MCR 2.517(A). People v Wardlaw, 190 Mich App 318; 475 NW2d 387 (1991).
Finally, the circuit court did not err in allowing testimony that defendant had taken a bath with the five-year-old complainant and her younger sister. This could be considered prior inappropriate sexual behavior by defendant toward the complainant and was admissible. People v DerMartzex, 390 Mich 410; 213 NW2d 97 (1973).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Fitzgerald, P.J., concurred.