Commonwealth v. A.R.
622 Pa. 356
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Appellant convicted of sexual abuse of a child, invasion of privacy, and criminal use of a communications facility for videotaping his 13-year-old stepdaughter undressing; he denied sexual motivation at trial and was sentenced to probation with mandated sex-offender treatment.
- Treating evaluator recommended sex-offender treatment including therapeutic polygraph to address appellant’s denial/justification patterns; appellant took a therapeutic polygraph and was deemed deceptive on relevant questions about sexual intent.
- Program staff concluded appellant remained noncompliant with treatment (continued denial) and discharged him; probation officer filed a violation of probation (VOP) petition alleging breach of treatment conditions.
- At the VOP hearing the trial court admitted the therapeutic polygraph results and other treatment testimony, found a probation violation, revoked probation, and imposed a new probationary term requiring completion of treatment and polygraph monitoring.
- The Superior Court affirmed, delineating conditions under which therapeutic polygraph results may be admissible at VOP hearings (not sole basis for revocation; not reveal uncharged crimes; not used to investigate crimes).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed: polygraph results were admissible at the VOP hearing for the limited purpose of explaining program staff actions and treatment procedures (not for the truth of the polygraph result). The Court did not adopt the Superior Court’s full test and declined to resolve whether polygraph results may be the sole basis for revocation or Fifth Amendment questions.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of therapeutic polygraph at a VOP hearing | Polygraph evidence is unreliable and inadmissible; results should be confined to therapy, not used in court | Polygraph results were offered non-substantively to explain treatment actions; even excluding polygraph, ample evidence supported revocation | Admissible for a limited, non-truth purpose: to explain the program’s actions/treatment procedures; not admitted as substantive proof of guilt |
| Whether polygraph results can be sole basis for revocation | (Argued by dissent/Superior Court) polygraph should not be sole basis | Commonwealth suggested polygraph used to explain conduct, not as independent basis | Majority did not decide; concurrence would approve rule that polygraph cannot be sole basis |
| Fifth Amendment concern from therapeutic polygraph use | Polygraph compels self-incrimination if used substantively | Commonwealth: Fifth Amendment not implicated here because results not used to establish criminal conduct | Court declined to reach Fifth Amendment issue (appellant made no Fifth Amendment claim) |
| Precedent forbidding polygraph evidence (Gee and similar cases) | Gee establishes polygraphs inadmissible in all circumstances | Commonwealth: Gee plurality limited to trial contexts; VOP hearings different and polygraph can be admitted for limited purposes | Gee (a plurality) not controlling here; prior trial-era exclusions distinguishable; limited admissibility at VOPs upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gee, 467 Pa. 123, 354 A.2d 875 (plurality) (plurality opinion historically excluding polygraph at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Shrawder, 940 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (discusses therapeutic polygraph use in sex-offender treatment and VOP context)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 856 A.2d 178 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (related Superior Court precedent on polygraph evidence at revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 587 A.2d 1367 (1991) (refusal to admit polygraph-derived testimony at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 454 Pa. 75, 309 A.2d 732 (1973) (polygraph evidence excluded at criminal trial)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (U.S. Supreme Court recognizing lack of consensus on polygraph reliability)