State v. Mervilus
12 A.3d 258
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Miguel Abreu identified two men as robbers after being stabbed; defendant Mervilus and co-defendant Desire were arrested.
- Abreu initially identified the arrestees in a lineup/photographs and later testified he could not positively identify them in court.
- A knife was found near the arrestees, but with no blood or fingerprints linking them to the crime.
- Defendant signed a polygraph stipulation and a polygraph expert testified that the defendant was not telling the truth.
- Defense did not object to the polygraph testimony at trial; trial court admitted the polygraph results.
- Appellate Division reverses and remands for new trial, requiring a Frye hearing on polygraph reliability if the State intends to rely on polygraph evidence on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether polygraph evidence was admissible without a Frye hearing | Mervilus | Mervilus | Reversed; Frye hearing required on remand |
| Whether the polygraph expert’s testimony improperly conveyed guilt | Mervilus | Mervilus | Reversed; improper testimony prejudiced defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. A.O., 397 N.J. Super. 8 (App.Div. 2007) (limits and conditions for admissibility of stipulated polygraph evidence)
- State v. McDavitt, 62 N.J. 36 (Supreme Court 1972) (early framework for polygraph stipulations with counsel)
- State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (1990) (ultimate issue/experts may express opinions; jury must decide guilt)
- State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008) ( Frye standard for scientific reliability)
- State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (1997) (reliability standards for scientific evidence)
- State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285 (2006) (polygraph reliability concerns in New Jersey context)
- State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (plain error standards in review of polygraph testimony)