Opinion ID: 1790359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mention of the polygraph test

Text: During his testimony, the Commonwealth questioned Florence Police Officer, Bruce Graham, about his contact with the Appellant in the week following Marlene's disappearance. Graham testified he went out to the Waller Farm to talk with the Appellant; advised the Appellant that he was still looking for Marlene and asked him if he would be willing to take a polygraph test. Upon immediate objection by Appellant's counsel, no further evidence was elicited indicating whether Appellant accepted or refused the test or did, or did not, take it. At the bench conference the court refused to grant a mistrial, instead offering the defense an admonition, which was refused. Following the bench conference, the prosecution pursued an entirely different line of questioning with the witness and no further reference was made to this issue. Obviously, from the context, the comment as to the polygraph was inadvertent. In Morgan v. Commonwealth, 809 S.W.2d 704 (Ky.1991), we held the disclosure to the jury that an intense interrogation had taken place in a room containing a polygraph amounted to a virtual banner headline that Appellant had been given a polygraph examination. Id. at 706. In Ice v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 671 (Ky.1984), we held the mere mention of the taking of a polygraph examination was error. Here, however, we have an inadvertent statement of the offer, in a context that did not necessarily suggest a polygraph was taken and for which the court offered an admonition, which was refused. In order for a trial judge to grant a mistrial the record must reveal a manifest necessity for such an action or an urgent or real necessity. Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky. 1985). This test permits a balancing of the competing interests present whenever a Motion for Mistrial is advanced.... It is universally agreed that a mistrial is an extreme remedy and should be resorted to only when there is a fundamental defect in the proceedings which will result in a manifest injustice. The occurrence complained of must be of such character and magnitude that a litigant will be denied a fair and impartial trial and the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way. Gould v. Charlton Company Inc., 929 S.W.2d 734, 737-38 (Ky.1996). In light of the circumstances which occurred and the competing interests mentioned in Gould , the trial judge made the right decision. There was no manifest necessity requiring the granting of a mistrial for this inadvertent comment in the context within which it occurred and it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to so hold. Obviously it will not reoccur.