Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-704 (2020)

Case Notes

Opinion Testimony.

Long-standing rule prohibiting the admission of polygraph results properly applied where, had the trial judge allowed polygraph expert to offer his opinion that the defendant's answers were not deceptive, the state would have offered the opinion of detective that the defendant's answers were deceptive, and this would have created the very situation which the legislature and the courts have sought to avoid: the likelihood of credibility determinations being made by reference to the unreliable results of a polygraph examination. Misskelley v. State, 323 Ark. 449, 915 S.W.2d 702 (1996).

Reference to Polygraph Test.

Any reference at trial to a polygraph test, in the absence of an agreement or other justifiable circumstances, ordinarily constitutes prejudicial error. Hayes v. State, 298 Ark. 356, 767 S.W.2d 525 (1989).

While neither the results of a lie detector examination nor testimony that indirectly or inferentially apprises a jury of the results of a lie detector examination are admissible, the fact that the jury is apprised that a lie detector test was taken is not necessarily prejudicial if no inference as to the result is raised or if any inferences that might be raised as to the result are not prejudicial. Wingfield v. State, 303 Ark. 291, 796 S.W.2d 574 (1990).

A witness's veracity can not be bolstered or discredited by proof of his taking or refusing a lie detector test, and evidence of a witness's willingness or reluctance to be examined is also prejudicial and inadmissible to prove consciousness of innocence or of guilt. Wingfield v. State, 303 Ark. 291, 796 S.W.2d 574 (1990).

The district court's finding that there was no agreement between defendant's counsel and the prosecutor that a polygraph test result would be admissible was not clearly erroneous; having failed to obtain an oral agreement from the prosecutor, defendant's counsel cannot be criticized for failing to reduce that agreement to writing, and without an agreement of any kind, the polygraph test results were clearly inadmissible. Houston v. Lockhart, 9 F.3d 62 (8th Cir. 1993).

Trial court properly denied defendant's motion for mistrial after a witness mentioned defendant's having missed an appointment for a polygraph exam; the appellate court held that defendant had not met his burden of showing the jury was prejudiced by the referral to the missed polygraph exam and, even if prejudice could be presumed, any error caused was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. Peters v. State, 357 Ark. 297, 166 S.W.3d 34 (2004).

In a rape case, although the prohibition on the introduction of polygraph results in this section extended to the willingness or reluctance to be examined as evidence of consciousness of innocence or guilt, the state was not prohibited from introducing a redacted portion of an interview where defendant discussed taking the test; moreover, there was no requirement that the entire statement should have been admitted under Arkansas case law or Ark. R. Evid. 106. Rollins v. State, 362 Ark. 279, 208 S.W.3d 215 (2005).

Motion for a mistrial was properly denied based on a reference to a polygraph test as the state did not elicit the comment about the polygraph, and nothing indicated what the results were. Johnson v. State, 366 Ark. 8, 233 S.W.3d 123 (2006).

Stipulation by Parties.

The trial court properly excluded evidence of an accomplice's polygraph examination absent a written stipulation between the parties. Foster v. State, 285 Ark. 363, 687 S.W.2d 829 (1985).

Polygraph tests are admissible only if both parties agree in writing to the admission. Houston v. Lockhart, 958 F.2d 826 (8th Cir. 1992).

The prosecution was under no obligation to make a written stipulation agreeing to the admission of polygraph tests results, regardless of any alleged oral agreement it may have made before the defendant took the tests. Houston v. Lockhart, 958 F.2d 826 (8th Cir. 1992).

The Arkansas Supreme Court has not interpreted this section literally; rather, test results are admissible if both parties enter into a written stipulation agreeing on their admissibility. Houston v. Lockhart, 982 F.2d 1246 (8th Cir. 1993).

An oral agreement to admit polygraph test results would be unenforceable. Houston v. Lockhart, 982 F.2d 1246 (8th Cir. 1993).

Cited: Cogburn v. State, 292 Ark. 564, 732 S.W.2d 807 (1987); Porter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 342 (2011); Nelson v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 421 (2013).