Opinion ID: 1159631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim of Breach

Text: When Johnson appeared before the DA's polygraphist, the polygraphist asked questions he determined necessary to conduct a reliable examination. At the evidentiary hearing, the polygraphist explained that the questions, answers, and results of Johnson's prior two polygraphs were necessary for him to formulate a reliable and accurate test on the issue of whether Johnson was involved in the planning, formation, or commission of the murder of Charbonneau: [DA'S POLYGRAPHIST]: Preplanning of the incident itself was an issue; whether he knew before the murder took place that it was going to happen; whether he touched the weapon, questions along those lines. [DA]: All right. [DA'S POLYGRAPHIST]: Um, not knowing the questions that were asked in both polygraphs before and not knowing the results of those polygraphs would make it very difficult for me. And I would suspect that if I asked the same questions the result may be the same, if they were inconclusive or whatever thosethose charts came out to be, and I don't know at this point what they were. I would suspect the validity of my testor better put, I would question the validity of the test that I gave not knowing those things. THE COURT: And is my understanding that you learned of the existence of these prior tests through the routine questioning that you do in the pretest that you were about to administer? [DA'S POLYGRAPHIST]: Yes, sir, that's exactly right. After explaining his rationale for requiring this information, the polygraphist stated he would have accepted one of Johnson's prior polygraph examinations, if reliably and accurately conducted to test Johnson's alleged non-involvement with Charbonneau's murder: [DA]: If, in fact, one of those polygraphs on those issues indicated he passed and you believed it was properly and reliably validly conducted, would you feel comfortable relying on that private polygraph? [DA'S POLYGRAPHIST]: Yes. The trial court evaluated Johnson's refusal to disclose information from the prior tests and his claim that the DA breached by refusing to proceed. It found to be valid the polygraphist's concern regarding the reliability of his own examination without knowing the questions, answers, and results of the two prior polygraphs. This finding is not clearly erroneous based on the evidence in this record. [9] Hence, we uphold it. See St. James, 948 P.2d at 1031 ([T]he ... question of whether a party has materially and substantially breached a plea agreement is left to the discretion of the trial court.) The plea agreement did not contemplate that the DA's polygraphist would administer his examination under suspect conditions. To the contrary, it provided that the polygraphist's statement would be conclusive as to whether Johnson had passed the test. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that Johnson had not qualified under the agreement to have his sentence reduced from twenty years to six years.