State v. Cain
2011 ND 213
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Sorenson and Slater, non-married parents, share a child born May 2008.
- Initial custody order in September 2009 awarded primary custody to Sorenson with Slater parenting time.
- Child suffered a broken clavicle in November 2008; injury timing disputed between Sorenson’s visitation and after return to Slater.
- Social services and law enforcement investigated; polygraph tests were administered during the investigation.
- On remand from this Court, Slater introduced additional evidence about the clavicle incident; district court admitted and relied on polygraph results to find domestic violence.
- Amended judgment on remand awarded Slater primary residential responsibility; Sorenson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand | Remand limited to correcting two clearly erroneous best interests findings. | Remand permitted broader proceedings to correct overall deficiencies and apply the correct statute version. | District court did not exceed remand scope. |
| Admissibility of polygraph evidence | Polygraph results are inadmissible or unreliable; improper to rely on them. | Polygraph evidence can be admitted with proper foundation and used in custody determinations. | Polygraph evidence was improperly admitted and relied upon; reversible error. |
| Use of polygraph to prove domestic violence | Findings of domestic violence were based on inadmissible polygraph results. | Polygraph results contributed to credibility findings and domestic violence conclusion. | Court erred in relying on polygraph results to conclude domestic violence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherspoon v. State, 1998 ND 148 (N.D. 1998) (polygraph reliability and admissibility considerations in non-criminal contexts)
- Healy v. Healy, 397 N.W.2d 71 (N.D. 1986) (polygraph evidence generally inadmissible; foundational requirements)
- Livinggood v. Balsdon, 2006 ND 215 (N.D. 2006) (remand procedure and evidence freedom on redetermination)
- Frisk v. Frisk, 2006 ND 165 (N.D. 2006) (discretion on allowing additional evidence on remand)
- Kautzman v. Kautzman, 2000 ND 116 (N.D. 2000) (remand procedure and evidentiary scope)
- Piatz v. Austin Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 ND 115 (N.D. 2002) (foundational prerequisites for scientific evidence in ND courts)
- McKechnie v. Berg, 2003 ND 136 (N.D. 2003) (admissibility standards in bench trials and weighing evidence)
- In re B.B., 2007 ND 115 (N.D. 2007) (bench trial evidentiary considerations; admissible versus competent evidence)