53 N.J. at 383, 251 A.2d 99. Here, the reference to the polygraph test did not refer directly either to defendant or a testifying witness, but to the polygraph results of an unindicted suspect. In a similar context, the Ninth Circuit has found the reference to the polygraph test of another suspect to constitute harmless error. See United States v. Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 505 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that district court’s refusal to strike references to polygraph examination was not prejudicial because it did not materially affect verdict); United States v. Hall, 805 F.2d 1410, 1417 (10th Cir.1986) (testimony that defendant had failed two polygraphs submitted to explain police’s failure to conduct more complete investigation). But see State v. Moss, 180 W.Va. 363, 376 S.E.2d 569 (1988) (<HOLDING>). On this record, the reference to an
holding that admission of testimony that state had dismissed indictment against earlier suspect because he successfully passed polygraph was reversible error when prosecutor repeatedly referred to polygraph on direct and in summation holding that when insureds counsel repeatedly mentioned um policy limits and the jury awarded the policy limit there was reversible error holding that defendant waived error of admission of hearsay testimony when he elicited it himself holding that admission of evidence of defendants gross receipts was reversible error holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice