State v. Sharpe

Facts

Alexander (D) was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse of a minor. Before trial, he hired David Raskin, Ph.D., a polygraph examiner, to administer a CQT polygraph examination. Dr. Raskin concluded that Alexander (D) answered truthfully when he denied committing the acts with which he was charged. An evidentiary hearing to address the admissibility of the polygraph results was held and consolidated with an unrelated criminal case pending before another judge because the two cases involved similar polygraph testimony by the same polygraph examiner, Dr. Raskin. Both sides also submitted copious evidence in the form of declarations by the two experts, scientific studies, treatises, etc. The judges concluded that CQT polygraph testing satisfies the Daubert/Coon requirements for scientific validity. Their order held that the polygraph evidence would be admissible, but on the condition that the defendants first testified at their respective trials and subjected themselves to cross-examination. Their ruling was also premised on each defendant agreeing to sit for a second polygraph test administered by the State, which the judges reasoned would mitigate concerns relating to possible bias by a 'friendly' examiner  and add additional 'guarantees of trustworthiness.'

Sharpe (D) was charged with murder and manslaughter in connection with the death of his girlfriend's two-year-old son. Sharpe (D) hired Dr. Raskin to administer a polygraph examination, after which Dr. Raskin concluded that Sharpe (D) answered truthfully when he denied the charges against him. P moved to preclude Sharpe's (D) polygraph evidence and Dr. Raskin's testimony. No new Daubert/Coon hearing was held and the judge relied on Alexander's (D) Daubert/Coon evidentiary hearing. The superior court held that the testimony would be admissible pursuant to the same reasoning as in that case. The court added the additional limiting instruction that the polygraph examiners - Dr. Raskin and the State's examiner - could testify only to whether Sharpe (D) 'believed what he was saying' and not to whether he was 'telling the truth'; the court reasoned that the latter would impermissibly imply that a polygraph test can reveal whether a statement is objectively accurate.

Jeffery Holt (D) was charged with five counts of first-degree sexual assault. Holt (D) hired Dr. Raskin to administer a polygraph examination, after which Dr. Raskin concluded Holt (D) was being truthful when he denied the charges on the grounds that the alleged victim consented to sexual activity. Both parties suggested and the court agreed it could determine the admissibility of Dr. Raskin's testimony by reviewing the record of the hearing and subsequent order in Alexander's (D) case. The judge concluded that polygraph evidence is not sufficiently reliable to be admitted. The court further concluded that Dr. Raskin's testimony would, in any case, be inadmissible under the evidence rules governing character evidence, bolstering, and prior consistent statements, as well as under the Rule 403 balancing test. Holt (D) was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual assault and four counts of second-degree sexual assault; he was sentenced to 28 years imprisonment with 8 suspended.

The cases were consolidated and eventually, the Alaskan Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.