JOSEPH ALEXANDER V STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS CO

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH ALEXANDER, UNPUBLISHED July 7, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellant, v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 219926 Kent Circuit Court LC No. 96-003649-CK Defendant-Appellee. Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hood and Saad, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In this first-party no-fault automobile insurance case, plaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment entered on a jury verdict of no cause of action. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). On appeal, plaintiff asks this Court to revisit the issue of exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial. As noted by defendant, however, this Court is bound by Michigan Supreme Court precedent, People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352, 364; 255 NW2d 171 (1977), which established a per se exclusionary rule regarding polygraph evidence at trial. The Barbara Court reasoned that the polygraph technique had not received the degree of acceptance or standardization among scientists to allow its admissibility. See People v Ray, 431 Mich 260, 265; 430 NW2d 626 (1988). Moreover, we note that in United States v Scheffer, 523 US 303; 118 S Ct 1261, 1265-1267; 140 L Ed 2d 413 (1998), the United States Supreme Court held that a per se rule against admission of polygraph evidence in court martial proceedings did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The Scheffer Court reaffirmed that “there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable.” Id. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also continues to hold that the results of polygraph examinations are inherently unreliable. See United States v Thomas, 167 F3d 299 (CA 6, 1999); King v Trippett, 192 F3d 517 (CA 6, 1999). Accordingly, until the United States Supreme Court or the Michigan Supreme Court rule differently, this Court is bound to follow Barbara and its per se exclusionary rule. -1­ Affirmed. /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Henry William Saad -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.