State v. Key
2017 Ohio 4098
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Darius Key was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a victim under ten and sentenced to 15 years to life; he filed a delayed appeal challenging exclusion of testimony.
- Pretrial, Key sought court funding to obtain a polygraph examiner and asked the court to admit polygraph evidence; the trial court denied the request, noting it could not order or admit polygraph testing absent the State’s stipulation.
- At trial Key testified about providing DNA swabs and began to say he agreed to take a polygraph; the State objected and the trial court struck the statement and instructed the jury to disregard it.
- Key assigned error arguing the court improperly prevented him from testifying that he volunteered for a polygraph, contending such an offer bears on his credibility and jurors can assess the declarant’s belief in polygraph reliability.
- The State argued the proffered testimony had minimal probative value, risked confusing the jury, and that excluding it was consistent with precedent disallowing evidence of polygraph offers or results.
- The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s discretion over admission of evidence and affirmed, concluding exclusion of the polygraph-offer testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Key) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding testimony that Key volunteered to take a polygraph | exclusion proper because such statements have low probative value, risk juror confusion, and polygraph evidence is generally unreliable | offer to take a polygraph is admissible to show consciousness of innocence and bears on witness credibility because jurors can evaluate the declarant’s belief in the test’s reliability | Court affirmed exclusion; no abuse of discretion in striking testimony about volunteering for a polygraph |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rowe, 68 Ohio App.3d 595 (1990) (polygraph results generally inadmissible as unreliable)
- State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 (1964) (refusal or willingness to take polygraph not admissible)
- State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d 123 (1978) (conditions for admissibility of polygraph evidence for corroboration or impeachment)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (trial court has broad discretion in admission/exclusion of evidence)
- State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (2014) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)