IRVIN M. YOUNG AND RICHARD M. CAMPBELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that admitting contrary polygraph expert opinions, despite a stipulation only for the examiner's testimony, was error.
Appellants were convicted of unlawful possession of cannabis after a joint trial. They stipulated to the admissibility of one polygraph examiner's tes…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Polygraph Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of their convictions and sentences, after a joint trial, for unlawful possession of cannabis. We find no merit in appellants’ contention that consent to search was involuntary, and affirm the denial of their motion to suppress the evidence so obtained. We conclude, however, that error is shown in the admission of certain evidence and reverse on that ground.
Appellant Campbell submitted to a polygraph examination and the parties stipulated that the results of the examination could be admitted into evidence. The parties also stipulated that the examiner could testify regarding his opinion as to the results of the examination. At trial the examiner testified that in his opinion the appellant had answered truthfully during the examination. The state then presented, over appellants’ objection, the contrary opinions of two other polygraph experts.
Unless stipulated by the parties, polygraph evidence is inadmissible in Florida. Cumbie v. State, 327 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Moore v. State, 299 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). The scope of the stipulation in the present case embraced only the examination itself and the testimony of the examining expert; it was error to admit into evidence over appellants' objec tion, the testimony of the state’s additional experts. Cf., Cumbie. These additional experts rendered contrary opinions based on the same material facts as those considered by the examining expert; such testimony was not impeachment evidence, as the state contends, but rather was independent substantive proof and not properly admissible.
The judgment and sentences are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
McCORD and WENTWORTH, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
la Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…stated he took the “Vegas Roll,” and “lost,” was an improper implication that La Rocca had failed a lie detector test. The general rule that absent stipulation of the parties, the results of polygraph examinations are not admissible, Young v. State, 387 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1st DCA 1980), does not compel reversal where, as here, the error in the introduction of or comment upon polygraph evidence was introduced by the defendant on cross-examination. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 359 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1978), cert. de…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Zimmer, 398 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…t personnel as a condition of continued or initial employment. See McMullin Appeal, 41 Pa.Cmwlth. 474, 401 A. 2d 572 (1979). . See Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1952); also see Codie v. State, 313 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1975), and Young v. State, 387 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . In fact, lie detector test examiners employed by the government are not even required to meet the minimum standards for licensing of examiners set by the state legislature. Section 493.562, Florida Statutes (1979). In any cas…
-
Brown v. State, 452 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…proof of a somewhat nonsensical agreement that polygraph evidence was admissible in the State’s investigation into the theft of the marijuana. A stipulation concerning the admissibility of polygraph evidence is limited to its terms. Young v. State, 387 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Consequently, the stipulation document in the case before us did not make the polygraph evidence admissible. Unlike the stipulation document, the waiver form clearly provided that anything Brown did or said during the polygraph…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 299 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Cumbie v. State, 327 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)