582 S.W.3d 179
Tenn.2019Background
- Quintis McCaleb was charged with aggravated sexual battery and two counts of rape of a child based on a minor's allegations.
- McCaleb voluntarily took a polygraph; the subsequent post-polygraph interview (videotaped) contained Sergeant Kennemore repeatedly telling McCaleb the polygraph showed deception and pressuring him; McCaleb then made incriminating admissions.
- The trial court found McCaleb’s statements voluntary (no constitutional coercion) but excluded the statements under Tenn. R. Evid. 403, concluding their probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice because admitting them would require revealing the polygraph results, which are inadmissible and likely to be given undue weight by a jury.
- The State obtained interlocutory review; the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion and that the unfair-prejudice inquiry must focus on the prosecution’s evidence itself, not the likely defense response.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the post-polygraph statements under Rule 403 given the risk that the jury would be unduly influenced by polygraph evidence once the defendant sought to explain the statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion excluding defendant’s post-polygraph admissions under Tenn. R. Evid. 403 | State: statements relevant; could be redacted and admitted; any prejudice arises from defense response, not statement itself | McCaleb: exclusion prevented him from explaining circumstances of confession (polygraph coercion), violating right to present a defense | Court: No abuse of discretion. Trial court permissibly weighed probative value against unfair prejudice including likely effects of admitting evidence and defense response (exposure of polygraph results) |
| Whether Rule 403’s unfair-prejudice inquiry must consider only the prosecutor’s evidence in isolation | State/Ct. of Crim. App.: prejudice must be evaluated looking only at the proffered evidence | McCaleb: trial court must allow evidence to explain confession; exclusion impairs defense | Court: Rejected narrow view; Rule 403 permits considering context, including potential defense cross-examination and jury misuse of polygraph evidence |
| Whether defendant’s voluntary statements necessitate admission because Damron allows post-polygraph statements when voluntary | State: Damron supports admission of voluntary post-polygraph statements | McCaleb: Damron protects right to present circumstances, not mandate admission when other rules conflict | Court: Damron is two-pronged—voluntariness and consistency with evidentiary rules; here Rule 403 exclusion was consistent with Damron |
| Whether the State preserved error as to exclusion of Sergeant Kennemore’s prospective testimony describing admissions | State: trial court erred in excluding Kennemore’s testimony about admissions | McCaleb: State failed to present that testimony at the hearing | Court: State failed to offer the testimony or make an offer of proof, so appellate review is precluded; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Damron, 151 S.W.3d 510 (Tenn. 2004) (post-polygraph statements may be admissible if voluntary and consistent with other evidentiary rules)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (defendant has right to present evidence about circumstances of confession relevant to its credibility)
- State v. James, 81 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2002) (discusses interplay of Rules 401, 403, and 404(b) in admissibility analysis)
- Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (defines abuse of discretion standard for reviewing discretionary trial rulings)
- State v. Pierce, 138 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. 2004) (reaffirms general rule that polygraph results and related testimony are inadmissible as unreliable)