This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of: Elaine Johnson,
Tedd LeRoy Johnson,
Filed June 1, 2004
Scott County District Court
File No. F-03-11461
Elaine Johnson, 11125 Dupont Court, Elko, MN 55020 (pro se respondent)
Marc G. Kurzman, Kurzman, Grant & Ojala, 219 Main Street Southeast, Suite 403,
Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Anderson, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*
G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge
Appellant and respondent applied for orders for protection against each other. Appellant produced the results of a polygraph examination and tapes recorded from a wiretap. In deciding the case, the district court refused to admit the results of the polygraph examination but did admit the tapes into evidence. But the district court refused to listen to the tapes and granted respondent’s request for an order for protection. We affirm.
Appellant denied all of respondent’s allegations, including that there was an argument on the morning of the 16th. Appellant testified that he left the parties’ house in Elko at 8:45 a.m. and arrived at his jobsite in White Bear Lake at 10:00 a.m. Appellant’s supervisor corroborated that appellant arrived in White Bear Lake at 10:00 a.m. Appellant restated his allegations that respondent abused him. The district court granted respondent an OFP and denied appellant’s application for an OFP. This appeal followed.
Appellant seeks a Frye-Mack hearing to determine the admissibility of the results of his polygraph. See State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 767-68 (Minn. 1980) (stating the standard to be used in hearings to determine the admissibility of expert testimony). The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, “Results of polygraph tests . . . are not admissible in Minnesota in either criminal or civil trials.” State v. Opsahl, 513 N.W.2d 249, 253 (Minn. 1994). The reason for this rule is “because there is insufficient evidence of their reliability.” State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1985).
Appellant argues that an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of his polygraph examination is necessary because polygraph examinations now have a proven track record of reliability. At the district court, appellant argued that numerous federal agencies allow or mandate the use of polygraph examinations and that there is at least one study indicating that they are 97-98% accurate, with the accuracy rate climbing above 98% when voice stress analysis is included, as it was here.
But given that the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated clearly and unequivocally that the results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible as a matter of law, Opsahl, 513 N.W.2d at 253, an evidentiary hearing is pointless. The district court did not err in excluding the polygraph evidence.
Appellant argues that the district court improperly ignored the audiotapes. The record reflects that the district court admitted the tapes into evidence but then paid little attention to the contents of those tapes.
“‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Minn. R. Evid. 401. Even if evidence is relevant, “it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . or by considerations of . . . waste of time. . . .” Minn. R. Evid. 403. We review the district court’s evidentiary decisions on an abuse of discretion basis. Kroning v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 42, 45-46 (Minn. 1997).
Here, the tapes and synopsis of those tapes are not clearly relevant because they do not directly address the precise issues before the district court–allegations of physical abuse by each party against the other party. While a contrary result would certainly have been defensible, we can not say on this record that the district court’s conclusion that the wiretap evidence at issue here was not sufficiently relevant to form the basis of the district court’s order was an abuse of discretion.
Appellant’s last argument is that the district court’s findings of fact implicit in the issuance of the OFP for respondent were clearly erroneous. Appellate courts defer to the district court’s credibility determinations and only reverse if they are clearly erroneous. In re Estate of Serbus v. Serbus, 324 N.W.2d 381, 384-85 (Minn. 1982). The district court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Esselman v. Prod. Credit Ass’n of St. Cloud, 380 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Mar. 21, 1986). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if this court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. The district court has not clearly erred “if the evidence as a whole sustains the trial court’s findings,” regardless of whether the district court could have reasonably reached another conclusion. Total Equip. Leasing Corp. v. LaRue Inv. Corp., 357 N.W.2d 347, 350 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1985).
Here, the evidence presented for consideration by the district court consisted principally of the testimony of the two parties with the critical addition of physical evidence that respondent had suffered bruises. The district court was faced with a difficult credibility determination and given the record before us, and in particular given respondent’s bruises, we cannot say the district court clearly erred in crediting respondent’s version of events on the narrow question of whether to issue an order for protection favoring respondent.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 Appellant, upon returning home in the evening, was arrested for fifth-degree domestic assault.
 Neither the parties nor the district court addressed the impact of Minnesota Statutes chapter 626A, which discusses the use of wiretap evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. Because the issue was not addressed or briefed by the parties, we do not decide the relevance and effect, if any, of chapter 626A, in the context of these proceedings.
 While we affirm the district court here, largely on the basis of the record and our standard of review, it is impossible not to share the district court’s warning to both parties that neither party was going to have any credibility left by the time the proceedings were concluded. In particular, while of dubious relevance to the precise issue before the district court, the content of the wiretap evidence can only be described as disturbing.