State v. Jones, 2014 Ohio 674

Victim (D.L.), age 12, reported defendant Horatio A. Jones (her mother's live‑in boyfriend) performed cunnilingus on multiple occasions April–June 2011; social‑worker interview recorded at a children's hospital.
Polygraph examiner Les Gloege conducted a July 27, 2011 polygraph; examiner told Jones the results indicated deception and reduced Jones to a written confession, which Jones later confirmed to police and repeated after arrest despite invoking counsel.
Jones was indicted on five counts of rape of a child (<13); he pled not guilty, later changed to not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), and was found competent and sane after pretrial evaluations.
At trial a videotaped interview with Gloege was played; the state agreed to redact explicit polygraph references but minor references to a "test" remained and appeared on tape; defense later elicited multiple references to a "test" during Jones’s testimony.
A jury convicted Jones of two counts (June 18 and June 30, 2011). Jones appealed, raising (1) denial of mistrial based on polygraph references and (2) failure to give an NGRI jury instruction.

Issue	State's Argument	Jones's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a mistrial for admission of references to a polygraph/test was error	Souel inapplicable; no direct evidence of polygraph results; references were subtle and primarily amplified by Jones’s own testimony	Jurors were prejudiced by inadmissible polygraph references; mistrial required	No abuse of discretion; any error was invited by Jones’s testimony and not prejudicial enough to require mistrial
Whether court erred by failing to instruct jury on NGRI when defense raised insanity	No request was made; record lacked expert or other evidence of severe mental disease/defect at time of offenses	Jones argued failure to instruct deprived him of due process and was structural/plain error given trial evidence and juror questions	No error. Defense presented no supporting evidence; testimony reflected possible incompetency issues (already resolved), not legal insanity; NGRI instruction not warranted

State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d 123 (1978) (sets conditions for admissibility of polygraph results when parties agree)
State v. Spirko, 59 Ohio St.3d 1 (1991) (absence of polygraph results can render Souel inapplicable)
Lester v. Leuck, 142 Ohio St. 91 (1943) (invited error doctrine: a party cannot take advantage of an error it invited)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for reviewing abuse of discretion)