WPC 7 qey+Jg4L@2s+`8mQUV`)F;^(^c/ GG[M %;焦n,?Df؁!-ًس@|m:ƯR`l)ŒrM3WtʱbL;vN8-3ض'U暪R >bh8y[+BBFi~E\L)Q=jcd8%>6] hƬGQ5W<k7y`먨ItL#˰wDhr5ޢ3z zw4fKt Rh r(i>{G_)joo@)u2P_ƞj^!f6VݫW)Ⱦ>nRbInxY&:e)Ӻl-mqM|왅Q],Pt10Q 3J}V}+v1b %\^ b 0nU"NwD4H\ zk m #  _ %NEb 0 B 0 D5i D- 0K ASi 0/ 0D Aⴝ/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.01s023|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2v$ !.8add8         0   d(|3w$ !.8add8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8add8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8add8     _   a8XXdd8@hh"~aINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#a"~ #Ԉ #    @  @` September16,2003Session F XXa #aXX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.BENJAMIN_DAMRON_XXa  ? @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty  9 @@No.29542JohnW.Rollins,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200300588CCAR9COFiledDecember29,_2003_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     #aX#XX.aDavidG.Hayes,J.,dissenting (x   Iamunabletojoinwithmycolleaguesinconcludingthatthedefendant'sinculpatory J statementmustbesuppressed.Thetrialcourtruledthatthedefendant'sstatementwasinadmissible 3 upongroundsthattherewasno"clearunderstanding[betweenthedistrictattorneyanddefense  counsel]aboutexactlywhatwasgoingtotranspire."Themajorityopines,ontheotherhand,that  thequestionswhichfollowedthepolygraphexaminationwere"oneeventand,therefore,partofthe  polygraphexaminationitself."    Thepropertest,Ibelieve,iswhetherthedefendant'sstatementunderthecircumstanceswas Y voluntary,"thatis,[it]mustnot[havebeen]extractedbyanysortofthreatsorviolence,norobtained B byanydirectorimpliedpromises,howeverslight,norbytheexertionofanyimproperinfluence." +{ U.S.v.BlackSpottedHorse,120F.Supp.2d802,806(_D.S.D._Ԁ2000)(holdingstatementsof d defendantmadeduringapostpolygraphinterviewbyauthoritieswereadmissible)(citingBramv. M UnitedStates,168U.S.532,54243,18S.Ct.183,187(1897)).Intheabsenceofdeception,  6  coercion,oroverreachingconductbytheState,Ifindthedefendant'sincriminatorystatement !! voluntaryand,thus,admissible. ""   Asnotedbythemajority,priortosubmittingtothepolygraphexamination,thedefendant $$ waivedhisFifthAmendmentrighttoremainsilent.Inaddition,thedefendantsignedadocument s% % entitled"ConsenttoPolygraphExamination,"whichprovidedinpertinentpart: \&!& 8  IunderstandthatIamvoluntarilyconsentingtothispolygraphexamination;thatI .(~#( havetherighttorefusetotaketheexamination;thatIhavetherighttorefuseto )g$) answeranyquestions;thatIhavetherighttoconsultwithanattorneybeforetaking *P%* theexamination;thatanystatementsImakemaybeusedagainstmeincourt;and *9&+ thatImayterminatetheexaminationatanytime.Alltestquestionswillbereviewed +"', withmebeforetheexamination., (-    -(. _8  Iunderstandthatafterreviewoftheexamination,Iwillbeadvisedoftheresultsand,  ifnecessaryallowedtoexplainanyquestionableresponseswhichwereevident.   Ifindnothingconfusingastowhatthedefendantwastoldwouldhappenandwhat,infact, k happened.Asexplainedinthedocument,uponcompletionofthepolygraphexamination,the T defendantwasdisconnectedfromthemachineandadvisedoftheresults,whichindicateddeception. =  Afterwards,thedefendantexplainedtothepolygraphexaminerthat"[thevictim]wasnotforced." & v Ifindnothingintheexaminer'sreport,whichistheonlyproofbeforeus,suggestingthatthis  _ statementwasanythingotherthanvoluntary."Indeed,farfrombeingprohibitedbytheConstitution,  H admissionsofguiltbywrongdoers,ifnotcoerced,areinherentlydesirable."Oregonv.Elstad,470  1  U.S.298,305,105S.Ct.1285,1291(1985)."Veryfewpeoplegiveincriminatingstatementsinthe    absenceofofficialactionofsomekind."Schnecklothv.Bustamonte,412U.S.218,224,93S.Ct.   2041,2046(1973).Moreover,asageneralrule,courtshaveheldthatthemerefactthatthe   accusedconfessedtoaparticularcrimeinanticipationoforfollowingapolygraphexaminationdoes   notperserendertheconfessioninadmissibleinevidence.E.g.,Wyrickv.Fields,459U.S.42,47 n  49,103S.Ct.394,39697(1982)(voluntaryconfessiongivenduringpostpolygraphinterviewwas W  admissibleanddidnotviolatethedefendantsfifthamendmentrighttocounsel);Rupev.Wood,93 @ F.3d1434,1444(9thCir.1996)(thedefendantswillwasnotoverbornebythepolygraphexaminer )y soastorenderthedefendantssubsequentconfessioninvoluntary,where,afterthedefendant b voluntarilysubmittedtopolygraph,theexaminertoldthedefendantthatheappearedtohavefailed K theexamandthatthedefendantwouldbebetteroffifhecooperatedwiththeexaminerratherthat 4 havingtheexaminerreporttheexaminationresultstoinvestigatingpoliceofficers);Barrerav.  Young,794F.2d1264,126972#aXX#XXaԀ(7thCir.1986#aXXm#XXa)(confessionbythedefendantinresponseto  questionsoftheexaminerpriortotheadministrationofathirdpolygraphwasnotinvoluntary,where  thedefendantandhiscounselwaivedthedefendantsMirandarightsinrelationtothetestandwere  awarethatquestioningbytheexaminerwouldprecedetheactualtest);#aXX#XXaUnitedStatesv.Beckwith, q 22F.Supp.2d1270,128586(D.Utah1998)(informingthedefendantoftheresultsofapolygraph Z examdoesnotconstitutemisconductoroverreachingsufficienttoraiseanissueofaninvoluntary C confession);#aXX#XXaPowellv.Commonwealth,944S.W.2d1,3(Ky.Ct.App.1997)(wherethedefendant ,| initiatedthecontactwiththeexaminer,didnotrequestanyrestrictionsuponquestioning,andwaived e herrighttocounsel,confessionduringpostinterviewphasewasadmissible)#aXX#XXa;#aXXk#XXaStatev.Morton,715 N A.2d228,26162(N.J.1998)#aXX#XXa(subjectingthedefendanttopolygraphtestsdidnotimpugnthe  7 voluntarinessofhisconfession,whereinterrogatingofficersadvisedthedefendantofhisrightto !   refusetotakethetest,todiscontinuethetest,andtorefusetoansweranyquestionduringthetest). " !   Fortheabovereasons,Iwouldpermitintroductionofthedefendant'sinculpatorystatement. $# #aXXC#XXa#aXXM!#  XXa   `     h     ___________________________________ *Q%)    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE