STEPHEN SIMMONS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Greene, Filed Dec. 18, 2013,
Mistrial- Where Defense stated in opening that the Defendant offered to take a lie detector test, not abuse of discretion to grant mistrial over defense objection

In opening, defense attorney stated that defendant offered to take a lie detector test. The State objected and the trial court gave a “blurt” of a curative instruction. Two days later, the State requested a mistrial and it was granted over defense objection after the Court weighed other options.
Affirmed.

Other Notes from the Case
– Polygraph- “In criminal prosecutions, the polygraph test is a pariah; ‘polygraph’ is a dirty word.” [Quoting State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 275 (1992)]
– Polygraph- In Maryland, “it is universally held that evidence of the defendant’s willingness or unwillingness to submit to a lie detector examination is inadmissible.”
– Appellate- Abuse of discretion standard of review in cases of mistrial
– Mistrial- Manifest Necessity- To determine whether manifest necessity to declare a mistrial over defense objection exists, the trial judge must engage in the process of exploring reasonable alternatives and determine that there is no reasonable alternative to the mistrial