In August of 2020, the Dearborn County Sheriff’s Department received a report that two persons had been abused by Anthony Graff approximately ten years previously, when they had both been minors.  Aurora Police Detective Vernon McBride arranged to interview Graff, and, when Graff arrived, Detective McBride advised him of his rights.  Detective McBride questioned Graff regarding the accusations against him (which he denied) and suggested that he could take a polygraph test to resolve the issue.  Three days before the test was scheduled to take place, Graff called Detective McBride indicating that he needed legal representation, to which Detective McBride replied that he had the right to representation but that, because he had not been charged with anything, obtaining counsel would be his responsibility.  Detective McBride also reminded Graff that the polygraph was voluntary and that he could not be made to take it.  Graff indicated that he desired to take the polygraph test.  On September 17, 2020, Graff submitted to a polygraph examination, the results of which, according to the examiner, Detective Garland Bridges, indicated deception regarding both alleged victims.  Graff had not been asked to stipulate to the admission of the results.  Detectives McBride and Bridges spoke with Graff following the examination, during which conversation Graff made incriminating statements. 

In August of 2022, the State charged Graff with four counts of Class C felony child molesting and two counts of Class D felony child solicitation.  In September of 2023, the trial court denied Graff’s motion to suppress his statements to police and granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the administration and results of the polygraph examination.  The trial court granted Graff’s motion to certify both rulings for interlocutory appeal, and we accepted jurisdiction.  In this interlocutory appeal, Graff contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police because the State had failed to establish a valid waiver of his right to counsel, a valid waiver of his right against self-incrimination, or that the statements were voluntarily made.  Graff also argues that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to exclude evidence of the polygraph examination because it was tied to his interrogation and had led to incriminating statements. 

The scheduled panelists are Judge Bailey, Judge Bradford, and Judge Foley.