WPCR y+ݷMo2yyTD.ݷM)X G@N {](J˺ZWIS2G`-1@D^-oê&_|dOxO,v"r\Q?퀞Q+]B&nӓwI&u!DK0h:X ٬;J,8>%>'0pmlu<yb_fа DA <\$?kX7N;Z|1emJxbk<0Uh[PNxO& olbN, ؕ~mjRdDGc:&D:jF Tg/'tF7ao5tw ,yL‡|wPvu}c cM@=>˺C  Z4hb8KIR |L&|#U#N % 0: UN m 1u 72 ^ w 4    U@ LLb 0 D mN 0U 0 0 0l 07 0 0C 0 0 0! 0b" 00# 0# 0$ 0% 05& 0& 0}' 0 ( 0( 0) 0J* 0* 0+ 06, 0, 0`- 0- 0. 0Z/ 0>0 0V0 0N1 002 03 03 04 05 0r6 02D7 0v7 0:r8 0Y8 0_9 0 d9 0n: 0; B*= D/ > D+O> 0z> D/@ 0@ 06}A 0A 0:B 1eB 0^ZC 0 C 0<UDU6DU>DU*EEE/E B1ENEMK 0ccK 0VKLL1P 0NPPPPPPPPP)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q 04R\\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular R+$USUS.,    6  XX  _Tenn.CodeAnn.3913522.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)w1 0:i+003|x   Uher(I Z(Times New Roman  B R+$USUS.,    4  XX  _Thethreequestionstowhichtheexaminerreferredandtowhichthedefendanthadresponded nowere:  0  0` (#(#Didyouhavesexwith[theallegedvictim]?t` (#` (# 8  8`   Didyouhavesexualintercoursewith[theallegedvictim]attheFunTunnel? 8 Didyoutouch[theallegedvictim]withyourpenis?L` x` x - -(#$  0    R+$USUS.,    5  XX  _Thepolygraphexaminerdidnottestifyatthesuppressionhearing,buttheexaminersreportwasadmitted  intoevidenceandprovidesinpertinentpart: t 8  8`   Duringthepreinstrumentphaseofthepolygraphexamination,_DAMRON_ L waivedhisrighttolegalcounselandprovidedwrittenevidencehewas  undergoingthepolygraphexaminationvoluntarily._DAMRON_Ԁmadeno  statementscontrarytothosepreviouslymadebyhim.H ` x` x @*@$****   8  8`   Duringthepostinstrumentphaseofthepolygraphexamination_DAMRON_Ԁwas X   advisedoftheresultsandinitiallycontinuedtodenyhavingsexualintercourse  l  with[theallegedvictim]._DAMRON_Ԁmadethestatementthatifheadmittedto  0  suchactivity,hewouldlosehisjobwiththeNationalGuard,andthathewould   losehisparttimejobasapoliceofficer.Also,whenIstatedthat[thealleged h  victim]hadnotsaidshehadbeenforcedtoengageinsexualintercourse, ,|  _DAMRON_Ԁsaid shewasnotforced[.]_DAMRON_Ԁdepartedtheofficetomeet @  withhislegalcounsel. ` x` x    `     h      p     8  8`   Theexaminationwasterminatedat12:45PM,on01/04/99[.]U*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) `   R+$USUS.,    1  XX  _ThiscasewasheardaspartoftheOctober8,2004,_S.C.A.L.E.S._Ԁ( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal   E ducationfor S tudents)projectinFranklin,WilliamsonCounty,Tennessee.ThiswastheCourts31st_S.C.A.L.E.S._ v projectsincetheprogrambeganinOctober1995.Todate,over300schoolsandmorethan14,000studentshave < participatedin_S.C.A.L.E.S._ԀprojectsacrosstheState.*2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7H(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dG)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X75+ ` hp x 5  G)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.: 8HTML MarkupB      (.G2+$ !USUS.,      0  XX2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d  R+$USUS.,    3  XX  _InMirandav.Arizona,384U.S.436,47879(1966),theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatUUXXUԀ  8  #UXUX#whenanindividualistakenintocustodyandissubjectedtoquestioning,theindividual   8  8`   #U#mustbewarnedpriortoanyquestioningthathehastherighttoremainsilent, ` thatanythinghesayscanbeusedagainsthiminacourtoflaw,thathehasthe $t righttothepresenceofanattorney,andthatifhecannotaffordanattorneyone 8 willbeappointedforhimpriortoanyquestioningifhesodesires.Opportunity  toexercisetheserightsmustbeaffordedtohimthroughouttheinterrogation. p  Aftersuchwarningshavebeengiven,andsuchopportunityaffordedhim,the 4  individualmayknowinglyandintelligentlywaivetheserightsandagreeto  H answerquestionsormakeastatement.Butunlessanduntilsuchwarningsand    waiveraredemonstratedbytheprosecutionattrial,noevidenceobtainedasa     resultofinterrogationcanbeusedagainsthim.` x` x   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (.3$ !USUS.,    R+$USUS.,    8  XX  _Thedefendantreliesupon_Hembree_Ԁv.State,546S.W.2d235(Tenn._Crim_.App.1976),tosupporthis  argumentthatstatementsmadeduringpolygraphtestsarenotadmissible.Thedefendantpointstolanguagein t _Hembree_whichindicatesthatnotonlypolygraphtestresultsbutalsothecircumstancessurroundingpolygraphtests 8 areinadmissible.Acarefulreadingofthecaserevealsthatthe circumstancestowhichthecourtin_Hembree_ L referredwereoffersorrefusalstotakepolygraphtests,notstatementsmadeduringpolygraphtests.Thedefendants  relianceupon_Hembree_ismisplaced.Id.at240. R+$USUS.,    7  XX  _Seefootnote2,supra.(O$  R+$USUS.,    2  XX  _Referencesinthisopinionto counselorto defensecounselrefertotheattorneywhoinitially  representedthedefendantandnottoMr.Peterswhoultimatelyrepresentedthedefendantinthetrialcourtandon t appeal.&c$""0 !USUS.,  _XXXX@XX  8Xdd8  [=XXdd=INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@%ATNASHVILLE#XX@\# & FuXXOctober8,2004#XXFu##XXXX=#@XX@@ԀSession L #@@H##XX@)#FuXXHeardatFranklinFuFu_ #  1      _#FuFu##XXFu#@XX@@ "r  #XX@#FuXX#FuFu#FuFuSTATEOFTENNESSEEv.BENJAMIN_DAMRON_ Z  #XXFuL##XXXX#XXXX @XX#XX@o#@XX@@  #XX@#@XXԀ#XX@ #AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals   CircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty    No.295423JohnW.Rollins,Judge@XX   #XX@#@@*AYX) ` dE<{` A |  @@] ] No.M200300588SCR11COFiledNovember23,_2004_ w  ___ @ 0 @` 0@ ` (#` (#_____________________#XXXXM# @p @XX c    #XX@#WegrantedtheStatesapplicationforpermissiontoappealtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourtand u theCourtofCriminalAppealserredbysuppressingpotentiallyincriminatingstatementsgivenby a thedefendantduringthepostinstrumentphaseofapolygraphtest.Upondueconsideration,we M concludethatthelowercourtserredbysuppressingthestatements.Althoughpolygraphtestresults, 9 testimonyconcerningsuchtestresults,andoffersorrefusalstosubmittopolygraphtestsarenot %u admissibleintoevidence,voluntarystatementsmadebefore,during,orafterapolygraphtestmay a beadmittedintoevidence,providedthatthestatementsalsoareconsistentwithotherapplicable M constitutionalandevidentiaryrules.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals 9 isreversed,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththis % opinion.  ̀@XX  #XX@[ #  Tenn.R.App.P.11;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsReversed;Case  RemandedtotheTrialCourt q     FrankF._Drowota_ԀIII,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson, I" JaniceM.Holder,WilliamM.Barker,JJ.,andAllenWilsonWallace,Sp.J.,joined. 5#  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;  %] " ElizabethT.Ryan,SeniorCounsel;CharlesM._Layne_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJasonM. %I!# Ponder,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellant,StateofTennessee.  &5"$ RobertS.Peters,Winchester,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Benjamin_Damron_. ( $&E Ї   OPINION    @*@_ _ I.FactualandProceduralBackground     Thedefendant,Benjamin_Damron_,wasaccusedofrapingatwelveyearoldgirlattheFun t TunnelGameRoomin_Tullahoma_Ԁwherethedefendantworked.Bothacivilsuitandacriminal ` investigationresultedfromthisallegation.BeforethecasewaspresentedtotheCoffeeCounty L  GrandJury,counselj #  2      ׀forthedefendantapproachedthedistrictattorneygeneraltodiscusswhether 8  acriminalprosecutioncouldbeavoided.Thedistrictattorneygeneralagreednotonlytoallowthe $ t defendanttosubmittoapolygraphtestbutalsotoconsidertheresultsofthepolygraphtestbefore  ` presentingthecasetotheGrandJury.  L    Thepolygraphtestwasadministeredat10a.m.onJanuary4,1999,atthe_Tullahoma_ԀCity $  Hall.Althoughthedefendanthadanattorneyandhaddiscussedthepolygraphtestwithhisattorney,   thedefendantattendedthepolygraphtestwithoutcounsel.Therecordreflectsthatthepolygraph   testconsistedofthreephases,thepreinstrumentphase,theinstrumentormachinephase,andthe   postinstrumentphase.Duringthepreinstrumentphaseofthepolygraphtest,thedefendantsigned   adocumentXXXXԀentitled"ConsenttoPolygraphExamination"whichprovidedinpertinentpart: p 8  IunderstandthatIamvoluntarilyconsentingtothispolygraphexamination;thatI H havetherighttorefusetotaketheexamination;thatIhavetherighttorefuseto 4 answeranyquestions;thatIhavetherighttoconsultwithanattorneybeforetaking  p theexamination;thatanystatementsImakemaybeusedagainstmeincourt;and  \ thatImayterminatetheexaminationatanytime.Alltestquestionswillbereviewed H withmebeforetheexamination.4   8  Iunderstandthatafterreviewoftheexamination,Iwillbeadvisedoftheresultsand,   ifnecessaryallowedtoexplainanyquestionableresponseswhichwereevident.   #XXXX%#ThedefendantalsoreceivedMirandaZ #  3      ׀warningsandexecutedawrittenwaiverofhisconstitutional  [ [ X [  rights.Thiswaiverprovided:  8  Ihaveread,orhavehadreadtome,myconstitutionalrights.Iunderstandwhatmy  rightsare,andIamwillingtomakeastatementandanswerquestionswithouta t lawyerbeingpresent.`   Theexamineralsoreviewedwiththedefendantduringthepreinstrumentphasethequestionsthat 8  wouldbeposedduringtheinstrumentphaseofthetest.Thedefendantmadenoincriminating $ t statementsduringthisportionofthepolygraphtest.  `   Duringtheinstrumentphaseofthepolygraphtest,thedefendantwasconnectedtothe  8  polygraphmachineandquestionedabouttheallegationofsexualmisconduct.Thedefendantdenied $  havingsexualcontactwiththeallegedvictim.     Afterthepolygraphmachinehadbeendisconnected,thepostinstrumentphaseofthe   polygraphtestbegan.Thepolygraphexamineradvisedthedefendantthatthepolygraphtest   indicatedthedefendanthadanswereduntruthfullythreequestionsregardingtheallegedrape. #  4      ׀ p  Initially,thedefendantcontinuedtodenyhavingsexualintercourseorsexualcontactwiththealleged \ victim. #  5      ׀Thedefendantthencommentedthatifheadmittedtosuchconduct,hewouldlosehisjob   withtheNationalGuardandhisparttimejobasapoliceofficer.Whentheexaminerstatedthatthe  allegedvictimhadnotclaimedshehadbeenforcedtoengageinsexualintercourse,thedefendant  replied, Shewasnotforced. t   Thereafter,thedistrictattorneygeneralpresentedthecasetotheCoffeeCountyGrandJury, L  andtheGrandJuryreturnedanindictmentchargingthedefendantwithrapeofachild. #  6      ׀Priortotrial, 8  thedefendantfiledamotiontosuppresshisstatements.Insupportofhismotion,thedefendant $ t arguedthathisstatementswereinadmissiblebecausetheywerepartofthepolygraphtest.The  ` defendantalsoarguedthatdefensecounselandthedistrictattorneygeneralhadagreedthat  L  statementsmadeduringthepolygraphtestwouldnotbeadmissible.  8    Atahearingonthemotion,defensecounsel`l #  7      ׀andthedistrictattorneygeneraltestified   concerningtheallegedagreement.Defensecounselhadspokenwiththedistrictattorneygeneralby   telephoneforapproximatelyfifteenminutesbeforethedefendantarrivedforthepolygraphtest.   Duringthisconversation,defensecounselconfirmedthatthepolygraphtestresultswouldbe   inadmissible.Althoughdefensecounseladmittedthattheydidnotdiscusstheadmissibilityof p statementsmadebefore,during,orafterthepolygraphtest,defensecounselmaintainedthatheand \ thedistrictattorneygeneralhada tacitagreementthatsuchstatementsalsowouldbeinadmissible. H   Althoughthedistrictattorneygeneralrecalledhistelephonediscussionwithdefensecounsel  \ concerningtheinadmissibilityofthepolygraphtestresults,thedistrictattorneygeneraltestifiedthat  heconsideredthediscussionunnecessarybecausepolygraphtestresultshadneverbeenadmissible  inTennessee.Astotheinadmissibilityofstatementsbythedefendant,thedistrictattorneygeneral  deniedthatanyagreementexisted,tacitorotherwise.Thedistrictattorneygeneraltestifiedthathe t hadneveragreedtoexcludestatementsmadeduringanyphaseofapolygraphexaminationandthat ` hedidnotagreetoexcludesuchstatementsinthiscase. L    Thetrialcourtfoundthatneitherdefensecounselnorthedistrictattorneygeneralhad $ t intentionallydeceivedormisledtheother.Thetrialcourtfoundinstead alackofcommunication  ` aboutwhatwasexpectedandwhattheresultsmightbeandno clearunderstandingaboutexactly  L  whatwasgoingtotranspireduringthepolygraphexamination.Thetrialcourtalsoconcludedthat  8  thedefendanthadnotbeenina custodialsettingwhenhemadethestatements.Nonetheless,the $  trialcourtsuppressedthestatementscommenting, Idontthinkthatthoseresponsesunderthe   circumstancesareadmissible.     TheStatesoughtandobtainedpermissiontopursueaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule   9oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Inatwotoonedecision,theCourtofCriminal p Appealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgmentsuppressingthedefendantsstatements.Themajority \ concludedthatthestatementswereinadmissiblebecausethepostinstrumentphaseinterviewwas H partofthepolygraphtest,explainingthat therewasnoseparationastomarkadiscreteevent,other 4 thanpossiblythedisconnectionfromthemachine,ofthemachinephasefromthepostinstrument  p phasewhichcausedthedefendanttomaketheinculpatorystatements.Thereafter,thisCourt  \ grantedtheStatesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.WenowreversetheCourtofCriminal H Appealsandremandtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings. 4 @ II.StandardofReview     Atrialcourtsfindingsoffactinasuppressionhearingwillbeupheldonappealunlessthe  evidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Statev.Munn,56S.W.3d486,493(Tenn.2001).  Witnesscredibility,theweightandvalueofevidence,andconflictsintheevidencearemattersfor l thetrialcourttodecide,withtheprevailingpartyentitledonappealtothestrongestlegitimateview X  oftheevidenceandallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromtheevidence. D! Id.ThisCourtreviewsdenovoatrialcourtsapplicationoflawtothefacts.Statev.Walton,41 0"  S.W.3d75,81(Tenn.2001). #l! @ III.AdmissibilityofStatements  %0!$   InthisCourt,theStatecontendsthatthelowercourtserredbysuppressingthedefendants &"% potentiallyincriminatingstatementsmadeduringthepostinstrumentphaseofhispolygraphtest. '#& TheStateconcedesthatpolygraphevidenceisinadmissible.TheStateacknowledgesthatpolygraph (#' evidenceincludespolygraphtestresults,testimonyconcerningpolygraphtestresults,andoffersor )$( refusalstosubmittopolygraphtests.Nonetheless,theStatecontendsthatvoluntarystatements |*%) madeduringthecourseofapolygraphtestshouldbeadmissibletotheextentallowedbyapplicable h+&* constitutionalandevidentiaryrules.TheStatearguesthatthedefendantsstatementswerevoluntary  andwereobtainedconsistentwiththeFifthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.  Furthermore,theStateassertsthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfinding  thatthedefensecounselandthedistrictattorneygeneralhadnotagreedtoexcludesuchstatements. t   Thedefendantcontendsthatthelowercourtscorrectlysuppressedthestatementsbecause L  defensecounselhada tacit,absoluteunderstandingwiththedistrictattorneygeneralthatsuch 8  statementswouldnotbeadmissible.Thedefendantalsoarguesthathisstatementsareinadmissible $ t becausetheyweremadeduringthepostinstrumentphaseofthepolygraphtest.Finally,the  ` defendantarguesthattheCourtofCriminalAppealsproperlyappliedStatev.Greer,666N.W.2d  L  518(Wis.Ct.App.2003),andheurgesthisCourttohold,consistentwithGreer,thatstatements  8  madeduringapolygraphtestareinadmissibleunlessthestatementsandthepolygraphtestare $  separateanddiscreteevents.     Tennesseecourtshaveheldrepeatedlythatpolygraphtestresults,testimonyconcerningsuch   results,andtestimonyconcerningadefendantswillingnessorrefusaltosubmittoapolygraphtest   areinadmissible.Statev.Pierce,138S.W.3d820,826(Tenn.2004)(citingcases).Thisgeneral p rulestemsfromrelevancyandreliabilityconcerns.TennesseeRuleofEvidence402providesthat \  [_e]vidence_Ԁwhichisnotrelevantisnotadmissible.Becausepolygraphevidenceisnotconsidered H reliable,itisirrelevant.Pierce,138S.W.3dat826.Therefore,polygraphevidence,whichincludes 4 polygraphtestresults,testimonyconcerningsuchresults,andtestimonyconcerningadefendants  p willingnessorrefusaltosubmittoapolygraphtest,isnotadmissible._^ #  8      _ԀId.;seealsoUXXXXStatev.Torres,  \ 82S.W.3d236,252n.21(Tenn.2002)#XXXUXjF#;Statev.Hartman,42S.W.3d44,60(Tenn.2001);UXXXXԀ#XXXUX1G#UXXXXStatev. H _Irick_,#XXXUXwG#762S.W.2d121,127(Tenn.1988);Grantv.State,374S.W.2d391,392(Tenn.1964)UXXXX;#XXXUX^H#UXXXX 4 #XXXUXH#_Marable_Ԁv.State,313S.W.2d451,458(Tenn.1958);Statev.Campbell,904S.W.2d608,61415   (Tenn._Crim_.App.1995)(citingadditionalcases).     AlthoughTennesseecourtshaveoftenconsideredtheadmissibilityofpolygraphevidence,  nearlyfortyyearshavepassedsinceTennesseecourtshaveconsideredtheadmissibilityof  statementsmadeduringpolygraphtests.InStateexrel.Westonv.Henderson,413S.W.2d674 l (Tenn.1967),Westonsubmittedvoluntarilytoapolygraphtestconcerningtherobberyandmurder X  ofataxicabdriver.Westonwasclearedofanycrimeinvolvingthetaxidriver,butduringthecourse D! ofthepolygraphtest,Westonwasquestionedaboutotherunrelatedcrimes,confessedtothose 0"  crimes,andwasconvictedbaseduponthisconfession.Inahabeascorpusproceeding,Weston #l! challengedhisconvictions,arguingthattheconfessionuponwhichtheywerebasedhadbeen $X" illegallyobtainedthroughtheuseofapolygraphtest.InanalyzingWestonsclaim,thisCourt $D # recitedthe wellestablishedgeneralrulethat theuseofaliedetectorintheprocessof %0!$ interrogationdoesnotrenderasubsequentconfessioninvoluntaryorinadmissible.Id.at675.  UltimatelythisCourtrejectedWestonsclaim,stating:  8  Petitionerdoesnotclaimtheresultsofthispolygraphtestwereintroducedin t evidenceagainsthimnorthathisconfessionwasotherthanfreelyandvoluntarily ` given;butthat,insomemanner,thistestcoercedhimintogivingtheconfession.It L  maywellbetheresultsofthetest,whichmusthavebeenapparenttopetitioner, 8  influencedhimtogivetheconfession;but,sincetheresultsofsuchtestsarenot $ t admissibleinevidence,thenwhattheofficersmighthavefoundorlearnedfromthe  ` testwouldnotamounttoinducingorcoercingpetitionertosignaconfession. L    Id.  8    The wellestablishedrulereferencedinWestonpermittingtheintroductionofvoluntary   statementsmadeduringapolygraphtestremainsthemajorityruleintheUnitedStates.Statements   arenotinadmissiblemerelybecausetheyweremadeduringthecourseofapolygraphexamination.   JoelE.Smith,Annotation,AdmissibilityinEvidenceofConfessionmadebyAccusedin   Anticipationof,During,orFollowingPolygraphExamination,89A.L.R.3d230,2[a](1979& p 2004Supp.)(collectingcases).Adefendantschallengetotheadmissibilityofastatementmade \ duringapolygraphtestwillbeunsuccessfulunlessthedefendantcanshowthatthestatementwas H involuntary.Id.Voluntarystatementsmadeduringthecourseofapolygraphtestareadmissibleso 4 longastheyareconsistentwithotherapplicableconstitutionalandevidentiaryrules.Id.  p   Validreasonssupportadmittingintoevidencevoluntarystatementsmadeduringthecourse H ofapolygraphtest.AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasrecognized, admissionsofguiltby 4 wrongdoers,ifnotcoerced,areinherentlydesirable.Oregonv.Elstad,470U.S.298,305(1985).   Furthermore,thefactthatapolygraphtestisnotsufficientlyreliabletowarrantadmissionofits   resultsdoesnotunderminethereliabilityofvoluntarystatementsmadebyadefendantduringa  polygraphtest.Peoplev.Ray,430N.W.2d626,628(Mich.1988).Indeed,astheMichigan  SupremeCourtcorrectlyexplained:  8  Thereliabilityofstatementsmadeduringapolygraphexaminationdoesnotdepend X  onthevalidityofthepolygraphtestortheexaminersskillinconductingthetestor D! interpretingitsresults,nordoestheuseofsuchstatementsimproperlydenigrate 0"  effectivecrossexamination.[A]statementmaybereliableandvoluntaryeven #l! thoughitwasmadeduringthecourseofapolygraphexamination.$X"   Id.at629.TheMontanaSupremeCourtsimilarlyexplainedthatequatingtestresultswith %0!$ statementsmadeduringthepolygraphtestisamistakebecause [t]heresultsofapolygraph &"% examinationinvolvethetestgiversevaluationofresponseswhile [s]tatementsinvolvedirect '#& responsestoquestioningandnottheevaluationofthecredibilityinresponding.Statev.Smith,715 (#' P.2d1301,1310(Mont.1986).Therationaleandpoliciessupportingexclusionofpolygraph )$( evidencedonotsupportexclusionofvoluntary,noncoercedstatementsmadeduringapolygraph |*%) test.ConsistentwithWestonandtheoverwhelmingmajorityofjurisdictionsthathaveconsidered h+&* thisissue,weholdthatstatementsmadeduringthecourseofapolygraphtestarenotexcludableper  seasevidenceattrial.Currentproceduresfortestingthevoluntarinessofsuchstatementsare  adequatetoinsurethatanunreliablestatementorastatementobtainedwithoutaknowingand  intelligentwaiverofadefendantsrightswillnotbeadmissibleattrial.Ifastatementisvoluntary t andconsistentwithotherapplicableconstitutionalandevidentiaryrules,thestatementcanbe ` introducedintoevidence.XXԀ#XXa#Insoholding,werejecttheanalysisofStatev.Greer,666N.W.2d518 L  (Wis.Ct.App.2003),whichwasadoptedbytheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Undertheanalysisof 8  Greer,anotherwisevoluntarystatementwouldbeinadmissibleunlessthestatementwasseparate $ t anddiscretefromthepolygraphtest.Forthereasonspreviouslyexplained,bydefinition,voluntary  ` statementsareseparateanddiscretefrompolygraphtests.Inourview,voluntarinessistheproper  L  testfordeterminingtheadmissibilityofsuchstatements.  8    Returningtothefactsofthiscase,weconcludethatthelowercourtserredbygrantingthe   defendantsmotiontosuppress.Thepertinentquestionforacourtdeterminingvoluntarinessis   whether,consideringthetotalityofthecircumstances,thestatementresultedfromcoercionand   overreachingbylawenforcementofficerssufficienttoovercomethedefendantsfreewill.Statev.   Smith,933S.W.2d450,45556(Tenn.1996);Statev.Kelly,603S.W.2d726,728(Tenn.1980). p Therecordinthiscasecontainsnoevidenceofcoercionoroverreaching.Thedefendantsigneda \ consentformpriortosubmittingtothepolygraphtest.Thisformadvisedthedefendantinclearand H succinctlanguagethatanystatementshemadecouldbeusedagainsthimincourt,thathewouldbe 4 providedtheresultsofthepolygraphtest,andthathewouldbeallowedtoexplainanyquestionable  p responses.Inaddition,thepolygraphexaminerprovidedthedefendantMirandawarnings,andthe  \ defendantexecutedawrittenwaiverofhisconstitutionalrights. H   Thepolygraphtestwasadministeredasithadbeendescribedintheconsentform.The   defendantwasprovidedtheresultsofthetestandgivenanopportunitytoexplain.Whenthe   defendantmadethestatementsatissueinthisappeal,thepolygraphexaminerwasnotinterrogating  thedefendant.Theexaminermerelywasaffordingthedefendantanopportunitytoexplain  questionableanswers.Confrontingasuspectwithpolygraphresultsordinarilyisnotcoerciveor  unreasonable._Wyrick_Ԁv.Fields,459U.S.42,48(1982).Doingsointhiscasecertainlywasnot l coerciveorunreasonablebecausethedefendanthadbeentoldbeforethetestbeganthathewould X  beadvisedoftheresultsandthathewouldbeallowedtoexplainquestionableresponses.The D! evidenceintherecordsimplydoesnotestablish,norevensuggest,thatthepotentiallyincriminating 0"  statementsresultedfrompolicecoercionoroverreaching,ratherthanthedefendantsfreewill. #l! Ѐ $X"   Finally,despitethedefendantsassertions,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthe $D # trialcourtsfindingthatdefensecounselandthedistrictattorneygeneralhadnotagreedtoexclude %0!$ anystatementsmadeduringthecourseofthepolygraphtest.Indeed,thetestimonyintherecord &"% fullysupportsthetrialcourtsfindingthattheprosecutionandthedefensehadnoagreementasto '#& theadmissibilityofstatementsmadeduringthepolygraphtest.Accordingly,weholdthatthe (#' defendantsvoluntarystatementsmaybeadmittedintoevidence,providedthatthestatementsalso )$( areconsistentwithotherapplicableconstitutionalandevidentiaryrules,eventhoughthese |*%) statementsweremadeduringthepostinstrumentphaseofthepolygraphtest.Theprosecutionmay h+&* notintroduceevidenceconcerningthepolygraphtestresultsorevidenceindicatingthatthe  defendantsstatementswereprovidedduringapolygraphtest.Suchevidenceisinadmissible.    @SS# IV.Conclusion  `   Basedupontheforegoinganalysis,wereversethejudgmentsofthetrialcourtandtheCourt L  ofCriminalAppeals.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith 8  thisdecision.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtothedefendant,Benjamin_Damron_,forwhich $ t executionmayissueifnecessary.  `     `    `     h   __________________________________________      `     h   FRANKF._DROWOTA_ԀIII, p    `     h   CHIEFJUSTICE