State v. Morgan

“[W]hen introducing statements made by a defendant in conjunction with a polygraph examination, [the state] may not introduce evidence that the statements were made in the context of a polygraph examination or details of the polygraph examination.” State v. Harberts, 315 Or 408, 413 (1993). “[W]hen the issue in the case for which the polygraph evidence is being offered is entirely independent of the questions that were the subject of the polygraph, the evidence may be admissible.” Id. at 414.

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy and attempted sexual abuse. After the victim’s allegation, Appellant employed an independent consultant to perform a polygraph examination so as to convince his parents of his innocence. After the examination indicated that Appellant was untruthful when directly asked if he sexually abused the victim, Appellant altered the examination report and delivered it to his mother. At trial, the state filed a motion in limine to introduce evidence of Appellant’s alteration of the report, arguing that it was probative his consciousness of guilt. The trial court granted the state’s motion, allowing the introduction of that evidence including testimony from the polygraph examiner, and video of the examiner’s post-examination conversation with Appellant. On appeal, Appellant assigned error to the trail court’s decision to grant the state’s motion relating to inadmissible polygraph evidence. Under State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 445 (1984), “polygraph evidence is inadmissible in any legal proceeding subject to the Oregon Evidence Code[.]” “[W]hen introducing statements made by a defendant in conjunction with a polygraph examination, [the state] may not introduce evidence that the statements were made in the context of a polygraph examination or details of the polygraph examination.” State v. Harberts, 315 Or 408, 413 (1993). “[W]hen the issue in the case for which the polygraph evidence is being offered is entirely independent of the questions that were the subject of the polygraph, the evidence may be admissible.” Id. at 414. The Court reasoned that Appellants conduct in altering the polygraph report would only be relevant to establish his consciousness of guilt when considered in relation to its contents, and thus could not be offered into evidence “entirely independent” of the polygraph examination. The Court thus held the trial court erred in granting the state’s motion, and that the error was not harmless. Reversed and remanded.