Opinion ID: 2623542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: admissibility of polygraph evidence in other state courts

Text: Eighty years ago, polygraph evidence was held inadmissible because it was not sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). The standards for the admission of scientific evidence were changed by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and many states, including New Mexico, adopted those standards. See State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192 (1993). Consequently, supporters of polygraph evidence sought its admission under the new standards. They have had little success before courts that have maintained pre- Daubert standards or courts that have adopted Daubert. Twenty-seven (27) states and the District of Columbia apply a per se rule of exclusion of polygraph evidence for all purposes. See Pulakis v. State, 476 P.2d 474 (Alaska 1970); People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354 (Colo.1981) (applying Frye, which Colorado abandoned in People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo.2001)); State v. Porter, [241 Conn. 57] 698 A.2d 739 (Conn.1997); State v. Okumura, [78 Hawai'i 383] 894 P.2d 80 (Haw.1995); People v. Sanchez, [169 Ill.2d 472, 215 Ill.Dec. 59] 662 N.E.2d 1199 (Ill.1996); Morton v. Commonwealth, 817 S.W.[2d]218 (Ky.1991); State v. Harnish, 560 A.2d 5 (Me.1989); State v. Hawkins, [326 Md. 270] 604 A.2d 489 (Md. 1992); Commonwealth v. Mendes, [406 Mass. 201] 547 N.E.2d 35 (Mass.1989); State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70 (Minn.1985); Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So.2d 158 (Miss. 1999); State v. Hall, 955 S.W.2d [198] (Mo. 1997); State v. Staat, [248 Mont. 291] 811 P.2d 1261 (Mont.1991); State v. Steinmark, [195 Neb. 545] 239 N.W.2d 495 (Neb.1976); State v. Ober, [126 N.H. 471] 493 A.2d 493 (N.H.1985); People v. Angelo, [88 N.Y.2d 217, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460] 666 N.E.2d 1333 (N.Y. 1996); State v. Grier, [307 N.C. 628] 300 S.E.2d 351 (N.C.1983); Fulton v. State, 541 P.2d 871 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); State v. Brown, [297 Or. 404] 687 P.2d 751 (Or.1984); Commonwealth v. Brockington, [500 Pa. 216] 455 A.2d 627 (Pa.1983); In Re Odell, 672 A.2d 457 (R.I.1996); State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995); Tennard v. State, 802 S.W.2d 678 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990); State v. Hamlin, [146 Vt. 97] 499 A.2d 45 (Vt.1985); Robinson v. Commonwealth, [231 Va. 142] 341 S.E.2d 159 (Va.1986); State v. Beard, [194 W.Va. 740] 461 S.E.2d 486 (W.Va.1995); State v. Dean, [103 Wis.2d 228] 307 N.W.[2d]628 (Wis.1981), declined to follow on other grounds by State v. Davis, [254 Wis.2d 1] 645 N.W.2d 913 (Wis.2002); Contee v. United States, 667 A.2d 103 (D.C.1995). These per se states ban polygraph evidence, including test results, offers to take the test, as well as refusals to take the test, for a variety of reasons. These courts found that the polygraph has not been proven valid or reliable or that it has not been generally accepted in the scientific community. [11] But a more salient reason for the outright ban is that the prejudice in a jury trial outweighs the probative value of corroborating a witness's credibility. See State v. Porter, [241 Conn. 57] 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997)(State appellate courts, for whom Daubert is not mandatory authority, largely agree with our assessment that the prejudicial impact of polygraph evidence outweighs its probative value.) Id. at 773. Four of the above states (Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin) had admitted polygraph evidence for years, but have since returned to a per se ban. See Commonwealth v. Mendes, [406 Mass. 201] 547 N.E.2d 35, 41 (Mass.1989)(citing inter alia dangers of confusing jury and usurping jury's role and the overwhelming authority throughout country) and State v. Dean, [103 Wis.2d 228] 307 N.W.2d 628, 653 (Wis.1981)(Adequate standards have not developed in the seven years since [the decision to admit polygraph evidence on stipulation] to guide the trial courts in exercising their discretion in the admission of polygraph evidence. The lack of such standards heightens our concern that the burden on the trial court to assess the reliability of stipulated polygraph evidence may outweigh any probative value the evidence may have.) Seventeen (17) states admit polygraph evidence at trial only when its admission is stipulated to in advance by all parties. See Ex Parte Hinton, 548 So.2d 562 (Ala.1989); State v. Valdez, [91 Ariz. 274] 371 P.2d 894 (Ariz. 1962); Holcomb v. State, [268 Ark. 138] 594 S.W.2d 22 (Ark.1980); People v. Fudge, [7 Cal.4th 1075, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321] 875 P.2d 36 (Cal.1994); Melvin v. State, 606 A.2d 69 (Del. 1992); Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1983); Fargason v. State, [266 Ga. 463] 467 S.E.2d [551] 553 (Ga.1996); State v. Fain, [116 Idaho 82] 774 P.2d 252 (Idaho 1989); Sanchez v. State, 675 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. 1996); State v. Losee, 354 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1984); State v. Webber, [260 Kan. 263] 918 P.2d 609 (Kan.1996); Corbett v. State, [94 Nev. 643] 584 P.2d 704 (Nev.1978); State v. McDavitt, [62 N.J. 36] 297 A.2d 849 (N.J. 1972); State v. Stevenson, 652 N.W.2d 735 (S.D.2002); State v. Crosby, 927 P.2d 638 (Utah 1996); State v. Renfro, [96 Wash.2d 902] 639 P.2d 737 (Wash.1982); Schmunk v. State, 714 P.2d 724 (Wyo.1986). In these states, stipulation usually means both parties agree prior to a subject taking a test that the results will be admissible and that the adversely affected party retains the right to cross-examine the polygraph examiner and otherwise to attempt to impeach the polygraph evidence. See, e.g., State v. Valdez, [91 Ariz. 274] 371 P.2d 894 (Ariz.1962). Generally, these appellate decisions do not claim that the evidence is probative or becomes reliable due to the stipulation. See Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242, 1247 (Fla. 1983). Some courts, however, have concluded that the stipulation makes the test reliable  it raises the examinee's fear and leads to the selection of more impartial examiners, tending to produce more accurate results. [12] Two (2) other states admit stipulated results but in limited circumstances. See State v. Yodsnukis, 281 N.W.2d 255 (N.D. 1979)(post-trial proceedings) and State v. Souel, [53 Ohio St.2d 123] 372 N.E.2d [1318] 1313 (Ohio 1978)(for corroboration or impeachment only). Louisiana and Michigan allow the admission of polygraph evidence without stipulation but only in post-trial proceedings. See State v. Catanese, 368 So.2d 975 (La.1979) and People v. Barbara, [400 Mich. 352] 255 N.W.2d 171 (Mich.1977). South Carolina generally bars admission of polygraph evidence, but the decision is now left to the discretion of the trial judge after a hearing applying Rules of Evidence 702 and 403. See State v. Council, [335 S.C. 1] 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C.1999).