STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
TONY D. HORVATCH, RESPONDENT
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 State of Florida sought certiorari review of a trial court's pretrial order allowing a defendant to introduce polygraph examination results at trial for aggravated battery charges. The appellate court granted the writ and quashed the trial court's order, holding that polygraph test results are not admissible in Florida criminal proceedings absent stipulation by the state, and the state has no obligation to stipulate.
Polygraph test results are not admissible evidence in Florida criminal proceedings absent stipulation between the state and defense counsel. The state has no obligation to stipulate to the admission of a defendant's polygraph test, and the state's refusal to stipulate based on concern that a jury might be misled by the purportedly scientific proof does not violate due process.
[1] Certiorari review is available to the state for legally erroneous pretrial rulings admitting or excluding evidence when no remedy would be available upon appeal from a fi…
[2] The results of polygraph examinations are not admissible evidence in Florida criminal proceedings unless the state and defense counsel stipulate to their admission.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“polygraph tests and information gleaned therefrom are not admissible evidence in any criminal proceeding in the absence of a 'stipulation between the state and defense counsel.'”
Establishes the controlling rule in Florida regarding polygraph admissibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTony D. Horvatch was charged with aggravated battery, a specific intent crime. Horvatch underwent a polygraph examination in which he answered 'no' to…
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.
ANSTEAD, Judge.
The state seeks review of a pretrial order holding that the respondent, Tony D. Hor-vatch, will be entitled to introduce the results of a lie-detector examination in evidence at his upcoming trial on charges of aggravated battery. We grant the writ and quash the order of the trial court.
In State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the Third District held that the state may obtain certiorari review of pretrial rulings excluding or admitting evidence where such rulings are legally erroneous and no remedy will be available to the state upon appeal from a final disposition of the case.
We agree with this proposition. If the court permitted the evidence to be admitted and respondent was subsequently adjudicated not guilty, the state would have no remedy by appeal, since the state cannot seek review of such an adjudication. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1).
We also believe that the ruling below is legally erroneous, for as stated in Pendleton v. State, 348 So. 2d 1206, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), “polygraph tests and information gleaned therefrom are not admissible evidence in any criminal proceeding” in the absence of a “stipulation between the state and defense counsel.” Accord, State Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Zimmer, 398 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
The results of polygraph examinations have not been accepted as competent scientific proof in Florida. Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1953).
Even under McMorris v. Israel, 643 F. 2d 458 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1479, 72 L.Ed.2d - (1982) [30 Crim.L.Rptr. 4217], cited by respondent for the proposition that the state’s refusal to stipulate to the admission of a defendant’s polygraph test may amount to a denial of due process of law when not based upon legitimate reasons, we believe the results of respondent’s test would be excludable. Aggravated battery is a specific intent crime. See Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
In our view the state was not required to stipulate to the admission of the polygraph test taken by respondent in which respondent’s answer of “no” to the question of whether he intended to commit an aggravated battery was purportedly truthful. Any criminal defendant, of course, may testify that he did not intend to commit the crime charged, but the subjective belief of the defendant is not necessarily dispositive. In the present case we agree with the state that its refusal to stipulate, based upon the possibility that a jury might be misled by the aura surrounding respondent’s purportedly scientific “proof” of his innocence and acquit on this basis alone, was legitimate. In any event, there is no provision under Florida law whereby the state can be compelled to stipulate to the admission of a defendant’s polygraph test, and we are in disagreement with McMorris to the extent that it holds that the withholding of consent under these circumstances violates the provision of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing due process. In accordance with the above we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order of February 2, 1982.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)…s of law. E.g., State v. Edwards, 490 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Maisto, 427 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Busciglio, 426 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Joseph, 419 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Love, 393 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dumas, 363 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1979); State v. Latimore, 284 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1…
-
Hardwick v. State, 630 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…nce of use of a deadly weapon, requires that the defendant specifically intend to cause great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement was not established. See Knott v. State, 573 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Affirmance on this point is mandated for two reasons. First, as the state points out, this ground for acquittal was not raised in the defendant’s perfunctory motions for judgment of acquittal.1 The state is correct that these “…
-
Lanier v. State, 443 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…at common law or by statute. Carver v. State, 344 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 174 (Fla.1977). Neither assault, § 784.011, Fla. Stat. (1981), nor battery, § 784.03, Fla.Stat. (1981), specific intent crimes, State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Shorette, 404 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); J.M.C. v. State, 331 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), embrace the consensual, non-violent conduct which occurred in the pres…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1952)
- State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Darrel McMORRIS v. Israel, 643 F.2d 458 (7th Cir. 1981)
- Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Pendleton v. State, 348 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- The Cleveland Tr. Co. v. Rickards Elec. Serv., Inc., 348 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Zimmer, 398 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)