Can a witness change his story after the initial interview?

can negatively affect the jury's appreciation of its exclusive power to judge credibility. [Citations.]" (People v. Basuta (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 370, 390 (Basuta).)

"The state's exclusion of polygraph evidence is adorned with no exceptions, and its stricture on admission of such evidence has been uniformly enforced . . . ." (People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 663.) In McKinnon, a witness testified he initially told police he knew nothing about the murder because he was afraid but later told the police the truth, that he witnessed the defendant shoot the victim. (McKinnon, supra, at p. 661.) On cross-examination, defense counsel asked if the witness had changed his story because the prosecutor threatened to charge him with the murder. He said no, he decided to tell the truth because his conscience bothered him. (Id. at pp. 661-662.) Out of the jury's presence, the prosecutor sought to introduce evidence that the witness had taken and failed a polygraph test after the first interview. The defense objected, citing section 351.1, and further contending that admission of the polygraph evidence would "improperly place a 'stamp of approval' upon the version of events to which [the witness] ultimately testified." (Id. at p. 662.) The trial court allowed the evidence, reasoning it was relevant to the witness's credibility because he might have changed his story because he was told he failed the polygraph test. (Ibid.) The witness then testified he melded truth and lies in his initial interview, took a polygraph test, and was told the results showed he lied about some things and told the

Page 42