Opinion ID: 1184265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The opinion by the Court of Appeals.

Text: In affirming defendant's conviction the Court of Appeals stated (99 Adv.Sh. at 1135, 525 P.2d at 207) that:    The court was careful throughout the trial to point out and require that the results shown by the polygraph machine tracings should not be brought into the court or referred to as evidence. This was in compliance with the general rule rejecting polygraph test results as evidence except under stipulation.    That court observed, however, that: Obviously, where the expert tells the jury that he informed the defendant that he was not believed, from that, and the observations about the questions that caused the greatest reaction, the jury will infer that the results of the polygraph test show defendant to have been untruthful, regardless of whether the jury sees the tracing from it. In reality then, there is a very thin line between what the court ruled could not be told in this regard and what the jury actually did hear. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals concluded that:    [U]nder case law it appears to be generally established that evidence like that received at bar is admissible as part of the `totality of the circumstances' surrounding a confession so that the jury may have all of the evidence in order to make its determination as to whether the confession is voluntary. After considering decisions by other courts, it was held (99 Adv.Sh. at 1138, 525 P.2d at 208) that:    Our review of the facts and law indicates that there is logical reason and ample authority for the ruling of the trial court at bar. Therefore, we find it not in error. After reviewing the voluminous record in this case, over 2,600 pages in length, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals was in error. First, the opinion of that court is in error in its assumption that the ruling by the trial court to the effect that the results of the polygraph tests should not be offered in evidence or referred to was adhered to by the state during the trial of that case. On the contrary, we find that although the polygraph tracings were not offered in evidence, detailed testimony was received relating to the conduct of both examinations, including specific questions asked, together with the testimony of the polygraph expert that defendant lied in answering those questions. Thus, even assuming that the initial ruling of the trial court was not in error, testimony was received, over objection by defendant, which clearly informed the jury of the results of the polygraph tests. In addition, we are concerned with the more fundamental question whether, as held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the fact of the taking of a polygraph test prior to a confession may be shown by the state during the trial of a criminal case and, if so, under what circumstances. That question has never before been directly considered by this court. [3]