Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh
620 Pa. 483
Pa.2013Background
- Fortenbaugh was charged with rape and related offenses involving his stepdaughter, with offenses occurring when she was 12 and then at ages 16 in 2005–2006.
- At trial, the Commonwealth introduced a CD recording of an interview where the detective asked about taking a polygraph test; Fortenbaugh objected and the court instructed the jury to disregard the polygraph reference.
- The Commonwealth redacted portions of the CD, but two obvious gaps remained, prompting a mistrial motion which the trial court denied; the jury convicted Fortenbaugh.
- On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding the polygraph references and redacted gaps were prejudicial and required a new trial under Watkins.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, holding the references were not inherently prejudicial and that the trial court’s cautionary instructions cured potential prejudice.
- The case is remanded for reinstatement of the trial court’s judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do polygraph references require a mistrial? | Fortenbaugh argues prejudice from direct references and gaps warrants mistrial. | Fortune[]baugh maintains references were not intentional and cured by instructions. | No; not prejudicial enough for mistrial; remand for reinstatement. |
| Were cautionary instructions sufficient to cure prejudice? | Jury could still infer guilt from references absent testing results. | Trial court’s thorough instructions adequately negated any improper impact. | Yes; instructions were adequate to prevent prejudice. |
| Is Watkins controlling on appeal? | Watkins supports reversal due to deliberate polygraph references. | Watkins is distinguishable; circumstances here show no deliberate prejudice. | Watkins distinguished; not controlling; no reversal on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 497 Pa. 257 (Pa. 1982) (three-factor consideration for polygraph references and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Watkins, 750 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2000) (prejudice analysis depending on circumstances; not always applicable)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 612 Pa. 107 (Pa. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard in mistrial rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (Miller framework applied in polygraph context)