ASHLEY VALENTINE CARTER, 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.
Ashley Valentine Carter appealed his conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling and sexual battery. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion to compel production of polygraph results but reversed and remanded for resentencing due to errors in the application of sentencing guidelines.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel polygraph results because such evidence is inadmissible unless both parties stipulate, and therefore not discoverable. However, the trial court erred in the sentencing calculation by improperly including one point for prior convictions, assessing points for 'moderate' victim injury when only slight injuries existed, and providing improper reasons for departing from guidelines and enhancing the sentence.
[1] Polygraph evidence is inadmissible unless both parties stipulate to its admissibility.
[2] Inadmissible evidence is not discoverable.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is well established that polygraph evidence is not admissible unless both parties stipulate to its admissibility.”
Establishes the foundational rule that polygraph evidence requires mutual stipulation for admissibility, supporting the affirmance of the trial court's denial of the motion to compel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sexual battery. The defense sought to compel production of polygraph examination results that alleg…
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
HENDRY, Judge.
Ashley Valentine Carter appeals from his conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling and sexual battery. We have carefully examined the record as a whole and conclude that no error has been demonstrated in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel production of allegedly favorable polygraph results. It is well established that polygraph evidence is not admissible unless both parties stipulate to its admissibility. Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 104 S.Ct. 3559, 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla.1970), vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 938, 92 S.Ct. 2868, 33 L.Ed.2d 758 (1972). Because these results are inadmissible, they are also not discoverable. Jacobs v. State, 396 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1981).
Furthermore, the defense was given a wealth of information regarding the polygraph examination. It was given a copy of the questions asked during the polygraph examination and the prosecutrix’s answers. The defense was given a copy of the statement the prosecutrix made to the polygraph examiner and the record reflects that this statement was consistent with her trial testimony. The defense was also told that it was the polygraph examiner’s opinion that the prosecutrix was untruthful in some of her answers. Appellant filed the motion to compel the production of these specific untruthful answers. The fact remains, however, that even if the defense had been given the polygraph results, this information could not be used as evidence against the prosecutrix as long as she continued to assert that this was a sexual battery. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel.
We find several errors, however, in the computation of points under the sentencing guidelines and in the enhancement of the sentence. The state conceded that the one point for prior convictions was improperly included. The points assessed for “moderate” victim injury should be reduced because the victim admittedly had only slight physical injuries. Finally, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the reasons given by the trial court for departing from the guidelines and enhancing the sentence were improper. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the guidelines.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cornell Austin and Kelvin Leroy Bryant aka Jit v. State, 679 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…e, 520 So. 2d 572 (Fla.1988); Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1264, 104 S.Ct. 3559, 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Cohen v. State, 581 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), review denied 592 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1991); Carter v. State, 474 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied 488 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1986). The defendants’ third contention is that they are entitled to a new trial based upon improper remarks or comments made by the prosecutor throughout the proceedings. We agree with the state…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Bannister, 683 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ist. The hearing examiner admitted into evidence the results of a polygraph examination which Bannister passed. Under present Florida law, the County’s objection was weE taken and the polygraph results should have been excluded. See Carter v. State, 474 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 4.88 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1986). Although the parties have treated the hearing examiner’s finding as being a finding of unintentional ingestion of cocaine, the hearing examiner used somewhat equivocal phraseology,…
-
Carter v. The Honorable Maria M. Korvick, 478 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Petitioner Ashley Valentine Carter has filed with this court a petition for writ of mandamus. We treat the petition as a motion to enforce the mandate which issued on September 5, 1985, 474 So. 2d 397. [*461] The motion to enforce is granted and, in accordance with our mandate, petitioner’s sentence is reduced to 30 months incarceration, with credit for time served. It is so ordered.…
Authorities Cited
- Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1983)
- Jacobs v. State, 396 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1981)
- Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1970)
- Brickhouse v. Slayton, 408 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1972)
- Staten v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1972)