Opinion ID: 2216780
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did trial court err in excluding evidence of polygraph examination?

Text: Defendant filed a pretrial request to compel the introduction of results of a polygraph examination of the defendant, which, he alleges, would have shown that defendant was not lying when he said that he did not shoot Gloria. In response, the State filed a resistance to the motion and also a motion in limine, requesting the court to prohibit defendant from in any way disclosing information regarding the polygraph examination at trial. After hearing argument on these motions, trial court overruled defendant's request and sustained the State's motion in limine. State v. Conner, 241 N.W.2d 447, 457 (Iowa 1976), reexamined and reaffirmed our unwavering rule that polygraph evidence may be admitted into evidence only by stipulation of the parties. In so doing, we rejected arguments defendant again raises here. Specifically, we found no merit in the contention that this rule denies constitutional rights to compulsory process and due process, id. at 457-58, or in the assertion that polygraph evidence has attained sufficient scientific acceptance and evidentiary reliability to be admissible absent stipulation, id. at 458-59. The latter assessment was recently again reaffirmed in In re Discharge of Fairbanks, 287 N.W.2d 579, 582 (Iowa 1980). In addition to the arguments rejected in Conner, defendant asserts two new grounds for error. First, he contends that the State implicitly stipulated to the use of polygraph evidence at trial by permitting a Cedar Rapids police officer to testify before the grand jury which indicted defendant that a polygraph examination given of defendant was inconclusive. In jurisdictions such as Iowa where polygraph evidence is admissible upon stipulation of the parties, there has been recognized an estoppel, or similar theory, requiring that a party be bound by his stipulation that the results will be admissible evidence. See, e. g., State v. Galloway, 167 N.W.2d 89, 93-95 (Iowa 1969); State v. McNamara, 252 Iowa 19, 27-29, 104 N.W.2d 568, 573-74 (1960). See generally Annot., 53 A.L.R.3d 1005, 1011-14 (1973). However, the stipulation which binds parties is not so imprecisely defined or inferentially established as defendant urges. There are requisites of a binding stipulation which were not met here. First, the stipulation must be agreed to by both parties. Here, defendant's willingness to admit the polygraph testimony was not alone sufficient. As we stated in State v. Freeland, 255 Iowa 1334, 1339, 125 N.W.2d 825, 828 (1964), such evidence is not admissible over the State's objection. See People v. Saffold, 47 Ill.App.3d 934, 937, 8 Ill.Dec. 286, 289, 365 N.E.2d 524, 527 (1977) (indicating necessity of state's stipulation). Secondly, the stipulation should be a matter of recordeither by a filed written document executed by both parties, see, e. g., McNamara, 252 Iowa at 27, 104 N.W.2d at 573, or by oral agreement of the parties in open court, see, e. g., In re Estate of Clark, 181 N.W.2d 138, 140-41 (Iowa 1970). Accord, State v. Saia, 172 Conn. 37, 41, 372 A.2d 144, 147 (1976); Colbert v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Ky. 1957), overruled on other grounds in Preston v. Commonwealth, 406 S.W.2d 398 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 920, 87 S.Ct. 886, 17 L.Ed.2d 792 (1967). See generally 83 C.J.S. Stipulations § 6(a) (1953). Here, there is no written document or any other evidence in the record of a stipulation by the State. Even if these shortcomings were ignored and the State's conduct before the grand jury were construed as a stipulation as to the admissibility of polygraph evidence in that proceeding, such stipulation would not necessarily extend also to the admissibility of polygraph evidence at trial. In fact, the general rule is that a stipulation is to be construed as covering the situation then existing, and not as controlling future conditions not in contemplation. 83 C.J.S. Stipulations § 11(a), at 29 (1953); accord, State v. Galloway, 187 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Iowa 1971) (stipulation limiting testimony at first trial regarding polygraph evidence to that of examiner whose qualification had been investigated would not permit defendant to submit evidence of another's opinion at second trial); Mills v. Bills, 97 Iowa 684, 66 N.W. 881 (1896) (stipulation that trial before justice of peace to be limited to one issue did not so limit appeal from justice's judgment). There is no reason to suppose that the State contemplated the admission of polygraph evidence at trial. Its mere request that defendant submit to a polygraph examination does not give rise to such an inference. See State v. Christopher, 149 N.J.Super. 269, 275, 373 A.2d 705, 708 (1977), cert. denied, 75 N.J. 24, 379 A.2d 254 (1977). It did not call as a witness at trial the police officer who commented on the polygraph test results before the grand jury. By reason of all the foregoing, we are convinced there was no stipulation by the State which would have permitted admission of the polygraph evidence at trial. Defendant's second original basis for asserting that trial court erred in excluding evidence of his polygraph examination relies upon section 810.2, Supplement to the Code 1977. That new section provides: A person arrested for or charged with an offense may request a district court judge to order a nontestimonial identification procedure. If it appears that the results of specific nontestimonial identification procedures will be of material aid in determining whether the defendant committed the offense, the judge shall order such identification procedures involving the defendant under such terms and conditions as the judge shall prescribe. Section 810.1 of the Code lists examples of nontestimonial identification devices included within the definition of that term. Polygraph examinations are omitted from that list. We need not now determine the significance of that omission because defendant's reliance upon section 810.2 was misplaced for a more obvious reason. Defendant's motion was not directed toward securing the administration upon him of an identification procedure, the matter to which section 810.2 is addressed. At the time of his motion, the polygraph test had already been given. The purpose of his motion was rather to secure admission into evidence of the test results. Section 810.2 had no bearing upon that request.