Opinion ID: 2070715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inadvertent or solicited statement.

Text: There is no evidence that the prosecutor promoted or encouraged Curtis to mention, in the presence of the jury, the administration to him of a polygraph examination. In sustaining the convictions of defendants notwithstanding such a disclosure, some courts have attached significance to the fact that the witness' reference to the examination was not solicited. See, e.g., United States v. Wyant, 576 F.2d 1312, 1319 (8th Cir.1978) (brief unsolicited statement); People v. Price, 1 Cal. 4th 324, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 165, 821 P.2d 610, 669 (1991) (reference was brief and non-responsive), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 851, 113 S.Ct. 152, 121 L.Ed.2d 102 (1992); Hawkins, supra, 604 A.2d at 493 (references to polygraph were inadvertent, uttered abruptly and impulsively, with no nefarious intent). But [a]lthough ... a solicited reference certainly is more egregious, it is only one factor and is not the determinative test. Guesfeird, supra, 480 A.2d at 804. As the Supreme Court of Maine has explained, [a] prosecutor has an obligation to caution his or her witnesses against testifying as to specific facts that the prosecutor knows are inadmissible. Edwards, supra, 412 A.2d at 987 n. 3. A failure to fulfill that obligation may result in substantial prejudice. Id; see also Smith v. State, 537 N.E.2d 496, 497 (Ind.1989).