Title: State v. Williams
Citation: 317 S.E.2d 396
Docket Number: 78A84
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: July 6, 1984

317 S.E.2d 396 (1984) STATE of North Carolina v. Samuel Lawrence WILLIAMS. No. 78A84. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 6, 1984. *397 Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., by Dennis P. Myers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State. Duncan A. McMillan, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee. COPELAND, Justice. Several months prior to trial, the defendant, his attorney and the prosecutor signed a stipulation agreeing to the admissibility of polygraph evidence at trial. At a hearing immediately prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence of both the testimony of the S.B.I. agent who administered the polygraph examination to defendant and the results of that polygraph examination. After voir dire, the trial court denied the defendant's motion and ordered that the results were properly admissible. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that the admission of these polygraph results and the accompanying testimony of the S.B.I. polygraphist constituted prejudicial error. That court relied on our recent case of State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 300 S.E.2d 351 (1983), where we held that polygraph evidence, even that to which the parties have stipulated to its admissibility, is inadmissible. The Court of Appeals concluded as follows: Williams, 66 N.C.App. at 375, 311 S.E.2d at 376. Although we concluded in Grier that polygraph evidence is inherently unreliable, we limited the rule of inadmissibility by applying that rule prospectively. We said in pertinent part that: Id. 307 N.C. at 645, 300 S.E.2d at 361. The trial of this defendant was concluded prior to the certification of this Court's decision in Grier. Thus, the rule announced in Grier has no application to the case sub judice. We stated unequivocally that the Grier decision was to be applied prospectively and the Court of Appeals should have followed the mandate of this Court in that regard. Since the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the new rules set forth in Grier to the case sub judice, the decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to hear the case on its merits. REVERSED AND REMANDED.