State v. Gibson
2017 Ohio 877
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul H. Gibson was indicted on four counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02) alleging offenses across several date ranges from 2010–2012 while the victim A.T. was under 13.
- A.T. (born Feb. 19, 2002) testified that Gibson, who lived with her family Aug–Nov 2011, repeatedly touched and ultimately forced vaginal intercourse and fellatio; disclosures developed over years and were corroborated in part by the mother and an expert on child sexual abuse.
- Two polygraph examinations of Gibson were administered by Detective Winters; the state moved in limine to exclude polygraph results and the trial court prohibited mentioning the tests but allowed testimony about Gibson’s pre- and post-test statements (without referencing the polygraph).
- Medical exam at a children’s clinic showed normal genital findings; the pediatric expert explained normal exams are common after delayed reporting and do not rule out abuse.
- Jury acquitted Gibson on counts 1–3 but convicted him on count 4; the court sentenced him to 10 years to life and classified him as a Tier III sex offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statements made during polygraph sessions | State: Pre- and post-test statements are admissible because they are voluntary Miranda-waived statements and do not reveal polygraph results | Gibson: Statements were part of polygraph exams and should be excluded or, if admitted, the jury should be told they were made during polygraph testing | Court: Statements admissible; Souel polygraph-rule inapplicable because results were not offered and Gibson was Mirandized and voluntarily waived rights |
| Right to explain context (that statements occurred during polygraph tests) | State: Mentioning polygraph sessions is prejudicial and inadmissible absent stipulation to results | Gibson: Jury should be able to hear context to avoid misleading impression | Court: Court properly barred mention of polygraph tests (risk of undue prejudice/speculation); exclusion within trial court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d 123 (Ohio 1978) (sets conditions for admitting polygraph results by written stipulation and trial-court discretion)
- Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1982) (statements made during a properly Mirandized polygraph interrogation are admissible even if test results are not)
- State v. Spirko, 59 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1991) (distinguishes between admissibility of statements given during polygraph interviews and admissibility of polygraph results)
- State v. Hughbanks, 99 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2003) (confessions made in pre-/post-test polygraph contexts admissible when Miranda warnings and voluntary waiver established)