People v. Levelston

• Decision Date: 24 July 1974
• Docket Number: Docket No. 18532,No. 3,3
• Citation: 54 Mich.App. 477,221 N.W.2d 235
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodell LEVELSTON, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 235

221 N.W.2d 235

54 Mich.App. 477

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodell LEVELSTON, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 18532.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

July 24, 1974.

Released for Publication Aug. 28, 1974.

Norman C. Halbower, Muskegon, for defendant-appellee.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Richard J. Pasarela, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.

Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and SMITH,* JJ.

HOLBROOK, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, arising out of a homicide which occurred in Muskegon County on July 14, 1973. On October 5, 1973, the defendant's attorney filed a motion for the admission at trial of evidence concerning a polygraph examination of the defendant and a res gestae witness. At the hearing the trial court heard the testimony of one witness who testified as to the general operation and reliability of polygraph tests. The operator who conducted the examinations did not testify. The people opposed the motion.

On October 15, 1973, the trial court ruled that the results of the polygraph examination of the defendant would be admissible at trial, but that the examination of the witness would not be admissible. An order in accord with that ruling was filed on October 16, 1973. The people have by leave of this Court appealed that interlocutory order.

We are now presented with a single question raised by appellant: Are the results of a polygraph or lie-detector examination admissible in evidence in a criminal case?

At the present time polygraph tests are inadmissible in Michigan. People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348, 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955). This holding has been restated by and reaffirmed in numerous cases both in this Court and in the Supreme Court. The ruling in the case of People v. Becker, 300 Mich. 562, 2 N.W.2d 503 (1942), left the door open for further evaluations of its holding. The Court indicated that such evidence might be admissible when it can be demonstrated that such tests are accurate and have obtained general scientific acceptance and standardization. Such demonstrations must establish that 'reasonable certainty follows from such tests'.

In some states such evidence is admissible on stipulation of counsel. (People v. Parisie, 5 Ill.App.3d 1009, 287 N.E.2d 310 (1972); and State v. Ross, 7 Wash.App. 62, 497 P.2d 1343 (1972).) However, in Michigan 'whether by voluntary agreement, court direction, or coercion, the results of such tests do not attain the stature of competent evidence'. Stone v. Earp 331 Mich. 606, 611, 50 N.W.2d 172, 174 (1951). The most recent statement of the Michigan Supreme Court on the subject is found in the case of People v. Frechette 380 Mich. 64, 68, 155 N.W.2d 830, 832 (1968), wherein it is stated: 'There can be no doubt at present that in this jurisdiction the results of lie detector tests are inadmissible'. See, also, People v. Tyrer, 385 Mich. 484, 189 N.W.2d 226 (1971).

Recent 1972 cases from other jurisdictions indicate that such evidence is not admissible in any jurisdiction. Such evidence was rejected in a leading Federal Court opinion in the case of Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293, F. 1013 (1923), which has been followed by other Federal Courts to the present time.

Appellant points out that in theory, evaluation of polygraph examinations is subjective, and is affected by many factors--physical and psychological. The expert in this case testified that 'even at the highest level of proficiency, polygraph examinations have a ten percent error factor'. For further enlightenment on the subject see Radek, The Admissibility of Polygraph Results in Criminal Trials: A Case for the Status Quo, 3 Loyola Univ of Chicago LJ 289 (1972).

Appellee does not quarrel with the cases cited by appellant, but asserts that the time has come when polygraph tests are sufficiently accurate to be received in evidence. In support of this conclusion appellee relies on the opinion of a text writer, professor Fred Inbau, who says in his book printed in 1966 ¹ that polygraph examinations have obtained enough scientific acceptability to be admissible. Although we accord Professor Inbau utmost sincerity and belief in his conclusion, we cannot accept his position when we weight it against the rejection of his premise by the overwhelming opinions of courts which have treated this question since 1966 when his book was printed.

Appellee also relies on two recently decided cases by lower Federal Courts. These are United States v. Ridling, 350 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.Mich., 1972) and United States v. Zeiger, 350 F.Supp. 685 (D.D.C., 1972). On the basis of these opinions appellee asserts that polygraph examinations now have general acceptance. These two isolated trial decisions are at odds with the large body of Federal case authority within the Federal Court system. Zeiger was reversed by peremptory order by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 155, U.S.App.D.C. 11, 475 F.2d 1280 (1972). Ridling apparently was not appealed. However, in the case of United States v. Frogge, 476, F.2d 969, 970 (C.A.5, 1973), on April 11, 1973, it was stated as follows:

'We are similarly unconvinced by the argument that the trial court erred when it refused to authorize the polygraph examinations requested by the appellants. Though a trend may be emerging towards loosening the restrictions on polygraph evidence, see E.g., People v. Houser, 85 Cal.App.2d 686, 193 P.2d 937 (1948), the rule is well established in federal criminal cases that the results of lie detector tests are inadmissible. United States v. Rodgers, 419 F.2d 1315, 1319 (C.A.10, 1969); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923). Nothing in United States v. Ridling, 350 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.Mich.1972), heavily relied upon by the appellants, persuades us to abandon the traditional view.'

Other...