Court Opinion

ID: 9812074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:36:21.662649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:06.132521
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION

JOHNSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion in which COCHRAN, J., joined.
I join the opinion of the Court and note that there appear to be additional reasons for the inadmissability of polygraph results in this case: the testifying therapist is not an expert on polygraphs, and the polygraph results are hearsay as to the thera*584pist. The expert who may base his opinion on inadmissible evidence and explain to the judge the basis for that opinion is the polygrapher, in this case an unknown person who did not testify. The therapist does not qualify as a polygraph expert and therefore should not be allowed to base his opinion on polygraph evidence that is not only inadmissible but hearsay as well.