Court Opinion

ID: 9702134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:56:23.784458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:33.906680
License: Public Domain

W. J. Caprathe, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s opinion on the last two issues, but dissent with respect to the first issue. I would, therefore, reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial. In People v Wallach, 110 Mich App 37, 62-63; 312 NW2d 387 (1981), we held that a witness’ mention of a "pre-test interview” was not a "self-evident reference to a polygraph examination.” However, in reading Wallach, one is unable to determine what other testimony the witness gave that might be relevant to this issue.
In the present case the witness, Palmatier, testified that he conducted a specialized interview with *349the defendant for the purpose of establishing whether the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim. Not only was there this testimony regarding a "specialized interview,” but there was also testimony that, after two and one-half hours, the officer had told the defendant he believed the defendant was lying. In addition, on cross-examination Officer Palmatier repeatedly stated his belief that defendant had lied during the interview.
Another witness, Detective Baker, subsequently testified and reiterated Palmatier’s description of the interview. He was cut short, however, by the trial court when he testified that defendant had said that "he would like to be the one to tell her [his girlfriend] first that he had failed his . . . .” I believe that when these circumstances are considered collectively, they amount to a "self-evident reference to a polygraph examination.”
The most logical, reasonable, and common response by jurors in filling in the blanks of the unfinished sentence would be "polygraph.” For those who weren’t familiar with polygraph machines, the testimony could lead to the conclusion that the officer used a "human lie detector” technique. This, of course, would also be inappropriate. People v Izzo, 90 Mich App 727, 730; 282 NW2d 10 (1979). People v Smith, 425 Mich 98, 113; 387 NW2d 814 (1986).
In any event, the lie detector implication bolstered Officer Palmatier’s testimony that the defendant lied and negatively affected defendant’s testimony at the trial. Therefore, it certainly was prejudicial and not harmless.
Therefore, I am firmly convinced that the trial court clearly erred in allowing this testimony.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.