## Facts

- Chuck Gard and Diana King were charged with two counts of arson arising from a single fire at a commercial building containing leased offices.
- Count I alleged they knowingly damaged the building by fire without the owners’ consent.
- Count II alleged they knowingly damaged the same building by fire with intent to defraud an insurer.
- King operated a business in part of the building and had an insurance policy covering business contents up to $20,000; she submitted a fire-loss claim for $17,438.
- A neighbor testified that around midnight on the night of the fire, King and a man identified as Gard moved furniture from the business space into a truck.
- At trial, State witnesses (including King and John Clutter) testified in a manner that referenced polygraph examinations; Clutter indicated he was told he failed a polygraph and then “began telling the truth.”
- The prosecution used the polygraph references to suggest that the witnesses’ post-polygraph accounts were truthful and that other evidence matching those accounts was therefore reliable.
- Gard did not object to the polygraph-related testimony at trial.
- A jury convicted Gard on both arson counts; he received two concurrent four-year prison sentences.
- The appellate court affirmed (one justice dissented), and the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing testimony and argument referencing polygraph examinations of State witnesses—used to bolster credibility—denied Gard a fair trial, and whether reversal was warranted under plain-error review despite no contemporaneous objection.
2. Whether two arson convictions may be entered for a single fire where one count requires lack of owner consent and the other requires intent to defraud an insurer, or whether one conviction must be vacated under the one-act, one-crime doctrine.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held that the State’s use of polygraph-related evidence to support witness credibility was improper and sufficiently prejudicial to constitute plain error requiring reversal.
- The Court held that the two arson counts were separate offenses with different elements and could both support convictions arising from a single fire.

## Legal Principles

- Polygraph results and polygraph references are generally inadmissible when offered to prove or imply a witness’s truthfulness; using such references to bolster credibility improperly invites jurors to rely on perceived scientific validation rather than their own credibility determinations.
- Plain-error review permits reversal without an objection where the error is fundamental and undermines trial fairness or the integrity of the judicial process.
- Under Illinois’ one-act, one-crime doctrine, multiple convictions may stand from a single physical act when the statutes define separate offenses requiring different elements and reflecting legislative authorization for cumulative punishment.
- For Illinois arson, damaging a building by fire without the owner’s consent and damaging property by fire with intent to defraud an insurer are distinct offenses because each requires proof the other does not.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the prosecution’s polygraph-based credibility theme created plain, reversible error, while also concluding that Illinois law permits convictions on both arson theories from the same fire because they are distinct, element-specific offenses.


People v. Gard, 158 Ill. 2d 191, 632 N.E.2d 1026 (Ill. 1994)