State v. Scott

• Decision Date: 28 August 1978
• Docket Number: No. KCD,KCD
• Citation: State v. Scott, 570 S.W.2d 813 (Mo. App. 1978)
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Odell SCOTT, Appellant. 29371.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 813

570 S.W.2d 813

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Odell SCOTT, Appellant.

No. KCD 29371.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

Aug. 28, 1978.

Clifford A. Cohen, Public Defender, Kevin Locke, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Ralph L. Martin, Pros. Atty. for Jackson County, Robert Frager, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.

SOMERVILLE, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was tried to the court, convicted of common assault (Sec. 559.220, RSMo 1969), and sentenced to three months confinement in the Jackson County Department of Corrections.

Defendant has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. Briefly, defendant entered the victim's home on the afternoon of May 5, 1976, under the guise of selling "life insurance". After gaining entry he pushed the victim, a fourteen year old female, into the bathroom for the ostensible purpose of "checking her over" for insurance. Once inside the bathroom, defendant assaulted the victim by pushing her to the floor and attempting to remove her pants.

Prior to trial defendant and the state executed an instrument in writing whereby defendant agreed to submit to a polygraph examination. The parties stipulated therein that the results of the polygraph examination, in the form of an opinion by the polygraphist, could be offered into evidence by either party without objection from the other so long as the results were not indefinite or inconclusive. The parties further stipulated that if the results of the polygraph examination were offered in evidence the opposing party was to have the right to cross-examine the polygraphist as to his qualifications, the manner in which he conducted the examination, the relevant questions asked the defendant and his opinion as to the defendant's truthfulness to each of the relevant questions. Although defendant's polygraph charts and the polygraphist's worksheets were not to be introduced into evidence, the parties agreed that the polygraphist could be questioned as to polygraph techniques and the possibility of error.

A polygraph examination of defendant was conducted by polygraphist Ray Crawford with conclusive adverse results so far as defendant was concerned. Crawford, called as a witness by the state, testified on oral examination that defendant, in his opinion, was untruthful when he denied having assaulted the victim. Defense counsel on cross-examination sought to inquire of Crawford as to the "rationale" behind the general rule of evidence obtaining in this state that the results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible as evidence. Defendant's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to pursue this line of inquiry on cross-examination.

Defendant seeks to legitimize the prohibited course of cross-examination on the theory that it was "calculated" to test the "reliability" of...