Court Opinion

ID: 9657503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:28:13.726517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:34.130260
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
The fact that counsel for appellant initiated testimony on the officer’s request that appellant take a polygraph exam is not controlling. This court has consistently ruled against introduction of evidence concerning polygraph results. See, e.g., Sabag v. Continental South Dakota, 374 N.W.2d 349, 352 (S.D.1985), and other cases cited by the majority. It is important that this decision is not read to impliedly authorize counsel to enter inadmissible polygraph related evidence via the back door. If reversible error was not present due to ineffective assistance of counsel, I would have urged reversal on the plain error doctrine due to the prejudicial nature of the polygraph related evidence.