THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY DANIEL CUNNINGHAM, 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.
Florida appealed the suppression of statements Cunningham made during a polygraph examination about a prior killing that occurred outside the scope of the original robbery investigation. The court affirmed the suppression, holding that polygraph results and statements obtained during testing are inadmissible absent a valid stipulation limited to the specific case for which the test was conducted.
The trial court properly suppressed the statements obtained during the polygraph examination because the stipulation between the State and defense counsel was limited solely to the Overhead Door Company robbery case and did not extend to other investigations or prosecutions. While polygraph results may be admitted upon stipulation, that stipulation applies only to the specific case for which the test was conducted.
[1] Polygraph test results are generally inadmissible in criminal proceedings unless stipulated by both the state and defense counsel.
[2] A stipulation to admit polygraph results into evidence in one criminal proceeding does not extend to other unrelated prosecutions.
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“Generally, polygraph tests and the information gleaned therefrom are not admissible evidence in any criminal proceeding.”
Establishes the general rule against polygraph admissibility in Florida criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCunningham was charged with robbing the Overhead Door Company. The State and defense counsel stipulated that Cunningham would submit to a polygraph ex…
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 Stipulation Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellee, Cunningham, was charged by information with the robbery of the Overhead Door Company. He protested his innocence and, during the pendency of this matter, his counsel and the State stipulated that he would submit to a polygraph examination, the results of which would be introduced into trial of that proceeding.
During the examination, the polygraph operator interrogated Cunningham as to whether or not he had ever killed anyone. At the conclusion of the test, the polygraph operator informed Cunningham that he was lying about not having killed anyone; that this would have an effect on the results of his test as to whether or not he had committed the robbery of the Overhead Door Company. Whereupon, Cunningham admitted that he had been involved in a robbery some years previous, which had resulted in the death of an individual. Subsequently, the polygraph operator informed the State of this admission and the State then instituted first degree murder proceedings against Cunningham as a result of the information learned by the polygraph operator conducting the test. Cunningham’s counsel in the murder prosecution filed a motion to suppress any statements during the trial received by the polygraph operator at the time he conducted the test. The trial judge granted the motion and this appeal ensued. We affirm.
Generally, polygraph tests and the information gleaned therefrom are not admissible evidence in any criminal proceeding. Kaminski v. State, Fla.1952, 63 So. 2d 339; Anderson v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So. 2d 390; Sullivan v. State, Fla.1974, 303 So. 2d 632. The results may be admitted into evidence upon stipulation between the State and defense counsel. State v. Drown, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 532; Ashary v. State, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 33; Moore v. State, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 119. The sole purpose of the stipulation entered into in the Overhead Door Company case related to permissible evidence in that cause and in no other. Therefore, we hold that the trial judge properly suppressed any information obtained during the giving of the polygraph test by the operator. Compare Pereira v. Pereira, 35 N.Y.2d 301, 361 N.Y.S.2d 148, 319 N.E. 2d 413. This will not preclude the State from continuing with its first degree murder prosecution, but will only preclude the State from using the information obtained by the polygraph operator in response to questions propounded to Cunningham.
Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I must dissent because I feel that this decision is an unwarranted extension of those cases rendering confessions inadmissible because of exaggerated protections allowed to defendants who have confessed to crimes. I see no difference between the confession of a separate crime to a polygraph operator and the confession of a separate crime to any non-investigative officer. I would reverse the order suppressing the confession upon the authority of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 798.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…d 1534 (1959) and State v. Mach, 187 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); product of illegally obtained confession, Collins v. Wainwright, 311 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); results of polygraph examination in absence of stipulation, State v. Cunningham, 324 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
-
Pendleton v. State, 348 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…discretion; the use of the standard jury instruction cannot be claimed as error. Lastly, the trial court, in excluding evidence that the defendant passed a polygraph examination concerning his guilt, followed State v. Cunningham (3 D.C.A. Fla.1975), 324 So. 2d 173, wherein generally, polygraph test and information gleaned therefrom are not admissible evidence in any criminal proceeding. The results may be admitted into evidence upon stipulation between the state and defense counsel. There was no such stipulat…
-
Hostzclaw v. State, 351 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1977)…KARL, Justice. This cause is before us on certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal in State v. Hostzclaw, reported at 351 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1976), which conflicts with State v. Cunningham, 324 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1975), thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Petitioner was indicted for the first degree premeditated murder of a Delray Beach police officer. He moved to suppress s…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974)
- Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1952)
- Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1970)
- Lucius B. Johnson v. State, 166 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Moore v. State, 299 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Askary v. State, 294 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)