157 Conn.App. 777
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Isabel Modaffari worked as a phlebotomist for Greenwich Hospital and reported contaminated blood vials in May 2011.
- FBI and FDA investigated; both closed their inquiries. Plaintiff later resigned and sued alleging constructive discharge and retaliation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q.
- At trial, FDA agent Matthew Comerford was asked whether a coworker (Wein) took a polygraph; after objection the court sustained but Comerford briefly answered that Wein "passed the polygraph," and the court struck the answer and instructed the jury to disregard.
- Plaintiff moved for a mistrial, arguing the polygraph remark irreparably prejudiced her credibility; the trial court denied the motion. Jury returned for defendant; plaintiff appealed only the mistrial denial.
- Appellate court reviewed whether the fleeting, struck statement and the question warranted mistrial given curative instruction, isolated nature of the event, and other evidence bearing on credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asking about and disclosing Wein's polygraph result required a mistrial | Comerford's statement that Wein passed the polygraph irreparably prejudiced Modaffari by undercutting her testimony about Wein's tampering | The question/answer was isolated, promptly struck, jury instructed to disregard, and other evidence already undermined plaintiff's credibility | Denied mistrial; appellate court affirmed trial court's discretion to refuse a mistrial |
| Whether the court's curative instruction was sufficient | No curative instruction could cure prejudice from polygraph result testimony | Jury is presumed to follow curative instructions absent strong evidence otherwise; instruction here was adequate | Court's single curative instruction was sufficient; presumption that jury complied not rebutted |
| Whether additional curative instructions were required | Additional instructions needed to mitigate prejudice | Plaintiff did not request additional instructions at trial and previously argued curative instructions would not help; extra instructions unnecessary | No additional instructions required; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether other trial evidence made the polygraph remark non-devastating | Polygraph remark damaged plaintiff's credibility and was decisive | Multiple other witnesses and inconsistencies compromised plaintiff's credibility independent of the remark | Other admissible testimony undermined plaintiff's credibility, reducing any prejudice from the polygraph comment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1997) (polygraph evidence is inadmissible where rules of evidence apply)
- Froom Dev. Corp. v. Developers Realty, 114 Conn. App. 618 (Conn. App. 2009) (mistrial remedy disfavored; trial court discretion reviewed deferentially)
- State v. Luther, 114 Conn. App. 799 (Conn. App. 2009) (party claiming mistrial must show irreparable prejudice depriving fair trial)
- State v. Bree, 136 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2012) (presumption that jury follows curative instructions)
- Camacho v. Commissioner of Correction, 148 Conn. App. 488 (Conn. App. 2014) (efficacy of curative instructions depends on magnitude of impropriety)