State v. Alexander

364 P.3d 458 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is facing trial for sexual abuse of a minor. D hired an expert, Dr. Raskin, to administer a polygraph examination. D hired an expert, Dr. Raskin, to administer a polygraph examination. Dr. Raskin was prepared to testify that there is a high likelihood that D was being truthful when, during the examination, he denied committing the acts of abuse. D requested an evidentiary hearing so that he might have the opportunity to establish that polygraph testing was based on scientifically valid methodology and that D's polygraph result should, therefore, be admissible at his trial. Prior case law put a ban on polygraph evidence but it was decided under the Frye test for the admissibility of scientific evidence - a test that was superseded by the Daubert test. Another case of child abuse with Griffith (D) being charged with sexual abuse of a minor, was consolidated by the judges in a Daubert hearing. Dr. Raskin also administered a polygraph to Griffith (D). Dr. Raskin concluded that Griffith (D) was being truthful when he denied the sexual abuse. Dr. Raskin testified for Ds, and another expert, Dr. Iacono, testified for P. The methodology being examined was called the 'control question' technique. Dr. Raskin pointed to studies which apparently demonstrated that the accuracy rate of polygraph examinations was between 89 and 98 percent. Dr. Iacono testified that the better-conducted studies of polygraph examinations showed that these examinations had accuracy rates of between 51 percent (essentially, a coin flip) and 98 percent, with average results being about 70 percent accurate. The judges held that 'control question' polygraph evidence met the Daubert test, and permitted Ds to conditionally introduce evidence of their polygraph results: (1) that each defendant would be required to submit to an additional polygraph examination, this one administered by a qualified examiner of the State's choosing, and (2) that each defendant would be required to testify at trial and submit to cross-examination. P appealed. Ds filed cross-petitions asking us to vacate the two conditions that the superior court placed on the admission of their polygraph evidence. Griffith (D) took a State-administered polygraph examination-and failed the exam. Griffith (D) then pled guilty, and he withdrew his cross-petition.