HENRY FRAZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Henry Frazier appealed his conviction for second-degree grand theft after a state witness testified during cross-examination that Frazier had failed a polygraph examination. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that introducing polygraph results before a jury constitutes grounds for mistrial because such evidence is inadmissible and highly prejudicial.
The court held that the trial court should have granted the mistrial motion because polygraph results are inadmissible in Florida criminal trials as unreliable and highly prejudicial, and introducing such damning evidence before a jury constitutes classic grounds for mistrial that cannot be cured by cautionary instruction.
[1] Polygraph examination results are inadmissible in evidence in Florida due to their unreliability and prejudicial nature.
[2] Testimony before a jury that a defendant failed a polygraph examination constitutes grounds for a mistrial.
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“Plainly, the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible in evidence in this state as being unreliable and highly prejudicial.”
Establishes the foundational rule that polygraph results are per se inadmissible in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring cross-examination of a state witness in a grand theft case, the witness volunteered testimony that police had polygraphed everyone involved and…
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 Cautionary Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Henry Frazier appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence for second degree grand theft and contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for mistrial after the following transpired in the presence of the jury on cross examination of a state witness:
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Did you ever ask Mr. Frazier if he took the carpeting?
[THE WITNESS]: No, we just polygraphed everyone. We decided, well, we would polygraph everyone and Henry flunked the polygraph.” We agree that a mistrial should have been granted based on this testimony.
Plainly, the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible in evidence in this state as being unreliable and highly prejudicial. Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952); State v. Curtis, 281 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 290 So. 2d 493 (Fla.1974). To place before the jury, as here, that the defendant in a criminal case failed a polygraph examination taken in connection with the case constitutes, in our view, classic grounds for a mistrial because the prejudicial impact of this damning evidence could not be cured by a cautionary instruction. See e.g., Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525, 527 (1941). Nor are we persuaded, as urged by the state, that defense counsel invited the inadmissible testimony herein. Counsel’s question in no way related to a polygraph examination or the results thereof; the witness’ answer was non-responsive and entirely volunteered.
We find no merit in the remaining contention raised by the defendant upon this appeal.
The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ortega-Mantilla v. State, 898 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ation of the appellant. The appellant nevertheless argues on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial because polygraph examination results are inadmissible in Florida. See Delap v. State, [*1167] 440 So. 2d 1242, 1247 (Fla.1983); Frazier v. State, 425 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Our review of the record, however, reveals that the defense objected to the admissibility of the polygraph results only on Frye2 and/or hearsay grounds. Consequently, we find - that this issue has not been adequately preser…
-
Simeon v. State, 520 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ence to the results of a polygraph examination, unfavorable to the defendant or favorable to a prosecution witness against him, is completely, usually fatally, and irreparably erroneous. Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952); Frazier v. State, 425 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Curtis, 281 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 290 So. 2d 493 (Fla.1974); see United States v. Hilton, 772 F. 2d 783 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Brown, 720 F. 2d 1059 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. Clar…
Authorities Cited
- Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)
- Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1952)
- State v. Curtis, 281 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Harris-In-Hollywood, Inc. v. H. S. A., Inc., 290 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1974)
- Curtis v. State, 290 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1974)