Opinion ID: 1156134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the evidence of failure to take a polygraph test

Text: Santillanes contends that the admission of the evidence that he failed to take a polygraph test was prejudicial, constitutional error which mandates a reversal of the conviction. We agree. On January 22, 1984, the day of Leavitt's murder, Santillanes did agree to take a polygraph test. On January 24, 1984, Santillanes spoke with a police detective. The test was scheduled for January 26, 1984. On January 25, 1984, Santillanes again spoke with the detective and informed the detective that he wanted to consult with a counselor at Nellis Air Force Base before taking the polygraph test. The detective told him that he should not talk to the legal counsel on the Base. Santillanes left Las Vegas on January 31, 1984. Evidence of the results of a polygraph test is admissible if both parties have signed a written stipulation to that effect. Aguilar v. State, 98 Nev. 18, 639 P.2d 533 (1982). In the absence of such a stipulation, polygraph evidence is inadmissible to impeach or corroborate the testimony of a witness. Corbett v. State, 94 Nev. 643, 584 P.2d 704 (1978). The prevailing rule is that proof that a defendant in a criminal trial either refused to take a polygraph test or offered to submit to one is inadmissible and incompetent evidence. State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d 182 (Mo. 1980); State v. McDavitt, 62 N.J. 36, 297 A.2d 849 (1972); see generally, 95 A.L.R.2d 819 for a discussion of cases which have considered this matter. As the court in State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255, 183 A.2d 655 (1962) stated: If the results of polygraph examinations are not competent evidence, a fortiori, refusal by a defendant in a criminal case to submit to one cannot be made the subject of testimony. In terms of degree of prejudice, the average jury, unfamiliar with the present scientific uncertainty of the tests, might very well be even more affected by proof of a defendant's refusal to take the test than by the evidence of results adverse to him coupled with proof of its scientific imperfection. In the instant case the State contends that Santillanes' unwillingness to undergo the polygraph test was relevant because it tends to establish Santillanes' consciousness of guilt. We do not agree. In People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737, 312 P.2d 665 (1957), the court said an accused may refuse to take a polygraph test, not because he fears that it will reveal consciousness of guilt, but because it may record as a lie what is in fact the truth. Disclosure of a murder suspect's refusal to take a polygraph test, evidence of which refusal was admitted on the theory that it tended to show a consciousness of guilt, was held in Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397, 339 P.2d 998 (1959) to constitute prejudicial error. The Colorado court noting that the defendant's conviction relied only upon circumstantial evidence (as in the instant case) held that the erroneous admission of evidence of the defendant's refusal to undergo a polygraph test might well be sufficient to tip the scales against him and that such refusal is not equivalent to evidence of consciousness of guilt. In the case at bar Santillanes, by pretrial motion, unsuccessfully objected to the introduction of evidence surrounding his failure to take the polygraph test. And in his argument to the jury the prosecutor stated: If he [Santillanes] is innocent, what is the first thing he wants to do. Go get the polygraph just as quick as he can. But if his state of mind is that of a guilty man... . We conclude that the admission of Santillanes' failure to take the polygraph test and the prosecutor's comments thereon constituted prejudicial error. [1] We therefore reverse and remand the case to the district court for a new trial.