Summary
Justice Kahn concurs in the judgment reversing the Connecticut Appellate Court in part and affirming it in part in State v. Leniart. The concurrence addresses the admissibility of a videotaped interview conducted in connection with a polygraph examination, explaining that references revealing the polygraph context may be inadmissible and that the trial court should have exercised its discretion regarding redaction and admission of the interview.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the defendant's expert testimony regarding the reliability of jailhouse informant testimony.
- Whether State v. Porter requires per se exclusion of a videotaped interview conducted before a polygraph examination, apart from evidence of the polygraph results or the witness's willingness to submit to the test.
- Whether any error in the evidentiary ruling concerning the videotaped interview was harmless.
Holdings
- State v. Porter is limited to the results of a polygraph examination and the witness's willingness to submit to the examination; evidence of either is per se inadmissible. Porter does not require per se exclusion of an interview conducted before the examination.
- The trial court was required to exercise its discretion to determine whether all or part of the interview was more probative than prejudicial, including whether redaction could eliminate references to the polygraph examination.
- Any error concerning the exclusion of the videotaped interview was harmless.
Key quotations
“Our holding in Porter was confined solely to the results of the polygraph test and the willingness of the witness to submit to that test— evidence of either is per se inadmissible.”
“As a result of its overly broad reading of Porter, the trial court improperly failed to exercise its discretion to determine whether the interview evidence, given the facts and circumstances presented, would have been more probative than prejudicial.”
“The trial court’s proper exercise of its discretion would prevent this eventuality.”
Factual background
Patrick J. Allain gave a videotaped interview before undergoing a polygraph examination and later testified as a state witness. The interview included statements by the polygraph examiner emphasizing that Allain needed to pass the test to become a useful or reliable witness for the state. The defendant sought to use expert testimony regarding the reliability of jailhouse informant testimony and challenged the treatment of the videotaped interview in light of its connection to the polygraph examination.
Procedural history
The Appellate Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction and that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the defendant's expert testimony regarding the reliability of jailhouse informant testimony. It also addressed the trial court's exclusion of a videotaped interview of Patrick J. Allain. The Supreme Court majority reversed the Appellate Court with respect to the state's appeal and affirmed with respect to the defendant's cross appeal; Justice Kahn concurred in that judgment.
Remand instructions
The source text does not state the formal remand instructions. It indicates that the trial court should exercise its discretion regarding the videotaped interview, including reviewing the full recording and considering redaction or admission of only portions that do not disclose the polygraph context.