Opinion ID: 1255112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Husband's Polygraph Test Results

Text: In Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 602, 252 S.E.2d 39 (1979), this Court ruled that [p]olygraph test results are not admissible in evidence in a criminal trial in this State. Although the trial judge instructed the jury that polygraph test results are not admissible in evidence in a criminal trial, he still allowed error to be committed in this regard on two occasions during the appellant's trial. As previously noted, the deceased woman's husband became a suspect in the murders soon after they were committed. After he was taken into custody by the police, the same police officers who later interrogated the appellant extracted a confession from the husband, and he was indicted by the grand jury. While the husband was in custody awaiting trial, the same trial judge who presided over the appellant's subsequent trial ruled that the husband's alleged confession was admissible as voluntarily given. In the Interest of John Moss, Jr., ___ W.Va. ___, 295 S.E.2d at 36. The indictment against the husband was dismissed after he passed one of two polygraph tests administered by the police. The police officer who administered the polygraph tests was called as one of the State's witnesses at the appellant's trial. The prosecuting attorney elicited the officer's testimony that, after administering the second polygraph test to the husband, he believed the husband was being truthful and that the prosecution got the wrong man when it brought charges against the husband. Moreover, over the appellant's continuing objection, the prosecuting attorney elicited testimony from the attorney who had represented the husband to the effect that, pursuant to an agreement between the prosecuting attorney's office and the husband, the husband voluntarily submitted to the polygraph examinations and was thereafter released from jail and the indictment against him was dismissed. We find that the introduction of the husband's polygraph test results in this instance was so prejudicial that the trial court's instruction not to consider such evidence was insufficient to cure the error, cf. State v. Acord, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 336 S.E.2d 741, 744 (1985). Here, the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State, through the introduction of the husband's polygraph test results, to prejudicially vouch for the husband's innocence. We again emphasize that trial courts must strictly adhere to the mandate of Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Frazier to not allow polygraph test results to be admitted into evidence in a criminal case. [4]