polygraph test in Indiana

2011The reasons for this rule are our supreme court's concerns that polygraphs are "not sufficiently accurate to mandate [their] admission" and that juries may "give undue weight to a polygraph test's validity." Id.

2011The reasons for this rule are our supreme court's concerns that polygraphs are "not sufficiently accurate to mandate [their] admission" and that juries may "give undue weight to a polygraph test's validity." Id.

1989On recross, she was asked, “What about [S.Z.]?” and she responded, “No, she was most cooperative, she took a polygraph.” Appellant then moved for a mistrial, citing Williams v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 365 , 375 N.E.2d 226 for the proposition that absent a stipu *24 lation, reference to a witness’ polygraph test is reversible error because it lends undue credence to that witness’ testimony.

1989On recross, she was asked, “What about [S.Z.]?” and she responded, “No, she was most cooperative, she took a polygraph.” Appellant then moved for a mistrial, citing Williams v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 365 , 375 N.E.2d 226 for the proposition that absent a stipu *24 lation, reference to a witness’ polygraph test is reversible error because it lends undue credence to that witness’ testimony.

2018A defendant is prohibited from stating he offered to take a polygraph test[,] and the State is equally prohibited from referring to such a test. 829 N.E.2d 612 , 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [17] " 'A mistrial should be granted where the accused, under all the circumstances, has by such trial proof been placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected.' " Id. (quoting Conn v. State , 535 N.E.2d 1176 , 1180 (Ind. 1989) ).

2018But "[a] mistrial is an extreme remedy and should only be used when no other curative measure will rectify a situation." Id.

1999In Pavone v. State, 273 Ind. 162 , 402 N.E.2d 976 (1980), the State’s lead witness waived his protection against self-incrimination and submitted to a polygraph examination.

1983It is well-established in Indiana that evidence regarding the administration or results of a polygraph test is inadmissible and a motion in limine is proper with respect to such evidence in the absence of waiver or stipulation by the parties 2 Pavone v. State (1980), Ind., 402 N.E.2d 976, 978 .

2025The officer responded, “I’d gone to Paula Willoughby’s house to inform her of our previous arrangement for her to take a polygraph test.” Id. at 575 .

2013Id.

2018A defendant is prohibited from stating he offered to take a polygraph test[,] and the State is equally prohibited from referring to such a test. 829 N.E.2d 612 , 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [17] " 'A mistrial should be granted where the accused, under all the circumstances, has by such trial proof been placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected.' " Id. (quoting Conn v. State , 535 N.E.2d 1176 , 1180 (Ind. 1989) ).

2018A defendant is prohibited from stating he offered to take a polygraph test[,] and the State is equally prohibited from referring to such a test. 829 N.E.2d 612 , 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [17] " 'A mistrial should be granted where the accused, under all the circumstances, has by such trial proof been placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected.' " Id. (quoting Conn v. State , 535 N.E.2d 1176 , 1180 (Ind. 1989) ).

2012However, McHenry spent thirty-five minutes just prior to the examination explaining to appellant the agreement in stipulation of polygraph, waivers and certification of understanding, and advisement of rights; throughout all the proceedings, appellant maintained her innocence; and in light of the stipulation’s provision that the State would not pursue charges if the test results indicated appellant’s noninvolvement in the drowning, counsel’s failure to dissuade her from undergoing the test clearly represents a sound tactical decision such as not to be condemned “through the distortions of hind

1990However, McHenry spent thirty-five minutes just prior to the examination explaining to appellant the agreement in stipulation of polygraph, waivers and certification of understanding, and advisement of rights; throughout all the proceedings, appellant maintained her innocence; and in light of the stipulation's provision that the State would not pursue charges if the test results indicated appellant's noninvolvement in the drownings, counsel's failure to dissuade her from undergoing the test clearly represents a sound tactical decision such as not to be condemned "through the distortions of hin

1999In Maddix , the trial court perfunctorily considered the results of the defendant's polygraph test after reaching a verdict and before sentencing; our supreme court pointed out various “contradictions and infirmities in the State’s case” and suggested that the only "possible purpose” served by the polygraph test was to “remove some substantial reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial court as to the appellant’s guilt.” 250 Ind. at 267-268 , 235 N.E.2d at 478-479 .

1999In Maddix , the trial court perfunctorily considered the results of the defendant's polygraph test after reaching a verdict and before sentencing; our supreme court pointed out various “contradictions and infirmities in the State’s case” and suggested that the only "possible purpose” served by the polygraph test was to “remove some substantial reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial court as to the appellant’s guilt.” 250 Ind. at 267-268 , 235 N.E.2d at 478-479 .

1982We still agree that in view of the unreliability of polygraphs, Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , cert. denied, (1976) 429 U.S. 851 , 97 S.Ct. 141 , 50 L.Ed.2d 125 , “the rule prohibiting reference to polygraph evidence absent waiver or stipulation ... is properly applied to prohibit a defendant from stating that he offered to take a polygraph test.” Moore v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 270, 274 , 369 N.E.2d 628, 630 .

1982We still agree that in view of the unreliability of polygraphs, Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , cert. denied, (1976) 429 U.S. 851 , 97 S.Ct. 141 , 50 L.Ed.2d 125 , “the rule prohibiting reference to polygraph evidence absent waiver or stipulation ... is properly applied to prohibit a defendant from stating that he offered to take a polygraph test.” Moore v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 270, 274 , 369 N.E.2d 628, 630 .

1987Kimmel v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 575, 584 , 418 N.E.2d 1152, 1157 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 932 , 102 S.Ct. 430 , 70 L.Ed.2d 239 ; Moritz v. State (1984), Ind.App., 465 N.E.2d 748, 758 .

1987Kimmel v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 575, 584 , 418 N.E.2d 1152, 1157 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 932 , 102 S.Ct. 430 , 70 L.Ed.2d 239 ; Moritz v. State (1984), Ind.App., 465 N.E.2d 748, 758 .

1987Kimmel v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 575, 584 , 418 N.E.2d 1152, 1157 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 932 , 102 S.Ct. 430 , 70 L.Ed.2d 239 ; Moritz v. State (1984), Ind.App., 465 N.E.2d 748, 758 .

1987Kimmel v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 575, 584 , 418 N.E.2d 1152, 1157 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 932 , 102 S.Ct. 430 , 70 L.Ed.2d 239 ; Moritz v. State (1984), Ind.App., 465 N.E.2d 748, 758 .

1973The defendants, by their counsel, certainly should have the right to examine the technician concerning the validity of the test; the questions propounded during the test; the technician’s training; and all other matters pertinent to the validity of any scientific investigation.” Carpenter v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 428, 431 , 241 N. E. 2d 347 , 15 Ind. Dec. 724 .

1973The defendants, by their counsel, certainly should have the right to examine the technician concerning the validity of the test; the questions propounded during the test; the technician’s training; and all other matters pertinent to the validity of any scientific investigation.” Carpenter v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 428, 431 , 241 N. E. 2d 347 , 15 Ind. Dec. 724 .

2023Detective Jones observed from another room, and Sergeant Gress began the examination by reviewing the polygraph waiver and consent form with Lyons, which advised him of the voluntary nature of the polygraph examination and his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2023Detective Jones observed from another room, and Sergeant Gress began the examination by reviewing the polygraph waiver and consent form with Lyons, which advised him of the voluntary nature of the polygraph examination and his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2018Id. [19] The facts of this case are quite similar to those in Luna, where police asked a molestation suspect to come to the police station to discuss allegations against him.

2016Courts have previously found that a party can open the door to evidence that would have been excluded under the Fifth Amendment, Ludack v. State, 967 N.E.2d 41 (Ind.Ct.App.2012); excluded under the Rape Shield Rule, Hall, 36 N.E.3d at 471 ; excluded as hearsay, Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011); excluded as evidence of prior bad conduct, Reese v. State, 939 N.E.2d 695 (Ind.Ct.App.2011); excluded as silence after a Miranda 5 warning, Barton v. State, 936 N.E.2d 842 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); excluded as character evidence, Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126 (Ind.2009); and excluded as evidence f

2016Courts have previously found that a party can open the door to evidence that would have been excluded under the Fifth Amendment, Ludack v. State, 967 N.E.2d 41 (Ind.Ct.App.2012); excluded under the Rape Shield Rule, Hall, 36 N.E.3d at 471 ; excluded as hearsay, Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011); excluded as evidence of prior bad conduct, Reese v. State, 939 N.E.2d 695 (Ind.Ct.App.2011); excluded as silence after a Miranda 5 warning, Barton v. State, 936 N.E.2d 842 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); excluded as character evidence, Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126 (Ind.2009); and excluded as evidence f