Opinion ID: 1133683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether there was reversible error in Ballinger's unsolicited comment regarding his offer to take a polygraph.

Text: ś 134. Rubenstein alleges he is entitled to a new trial because Ballinger stated that he offered to take a polygraph test. However, this issue is both procedurally barred and without merit. ś 135. In Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So.2d 158, 163 (Miss.1999), this Court held the inadvertent admission of evidence pertaining to a witness's offer to take a polygraph test or the mention of a witness's refusal to take a polygraph test does not automatically demand reversal. The nature of the admission and the circumstances attendant to its disclosure must be considered. Id. Unlike the facts in Weatherspoon, neither the State nor the defense solicited Ballinger's testimony regarding the polygraph test. Ballinger merely interjected that his offer to take a polygraph test was declined. Furthermore, neither party objected to his testimony. See Williams, 684 So.2d at 1203 (contemporaneous objection rule applies in death penalty cases). Reviewing the circumstances of the disclosure, and noting that Rubenstein made no objection, the issue is without merit.