Conley v. Com.
| Citation | 382 S.W.2d 865 |
| Parties | Fred CONLEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1964 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
Eugene C. Rice, Paintsville, for appellant.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., George F. Rabe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
Fred Conley was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of incest and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The prosecuting witness was his 14-year-old daughter, Lena Conley. He appeals.
The primary question presented for determination is whether it was prejudicial error to admit so-called lie-detector evidence upon the basis of a waiver signed by appellant, Conley.
The waiver recites in substance that appellant consented to submit to a lie-detector test, that he agreed the results could be introduced as evidence against him, and that the test to be taken was understood to be the standard polygraph test conducted by a qualified polygraph operator. The evidence shows that appellant was illiterate, being able to write only his name, but that he knew the contents of the waiver as it was read to him. The waiver also states that appellant was apprised of his rights. Appellant contended at the trial he did not understand it, and that he did not know what he was signing. It is undisputed that appellant did not have counsel at this time.
An annotation in 23 A.L.R.2d 1307, after pointing out that the lie detector is not an instrument that automatically and unerringly discloses a lie by the person being tested, states thus on the subject:
In the case at bar carbon copies of two sheets of paper were filed in evidence by the Commonwealth's attorney, without being identified by the person who allegedly prepared it. It disclosed a list of 31 questions that were supposedly propounded to appellant, and that no answers were given. This conclusion was appended by the person who called himself the polygraph examiner: Appellant objected seasonably to the introduction of this evidence.
Objection to the admissibility of the results of lie-detector tests is generally placed on the ground that such tests have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Mendes
....... 4 See Pulakis v. State, 476 P.2d 474 (Alaska 1970); People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354 (Colo.1981); People v. Baynes, 88 Ill.2d 225, 58 Ill.Dec. 819, 430 N.E.2d 1070 (1981); Conley v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.2d 865 (Ky.1964); Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 394 A.2d 1213 (1978); State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d 182 (Mo.1980); State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 300 S.E.2d 351 (1983); Fulton v. State, 541 P.2d 871 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); State v. Lyon, 304 Or. 221, 744 P.2d 231 (1987); ......
-
State v. Dean
...615 P.2d 101, 109 (Haw.1980); People v. Monigan, 72 Ill.App.3d 87, 28 Ill.Dec. 395, 400, 390 N.E.2d 562, 567 (1979); Conley v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.2d 865 (Ky.1964); State v. Corbin, 285 So.2d 234, 239 (La.1973); State v. Gagne, Me., 343 A.2d 186, 192 (1975); Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 67......
-
State v. Lyon
......Anderson, 637 P.2d 354 (Colo.1981); People v. Baynes, 88 Ill.2d 225, 58 Ill.Dec. 819, 430 N.E.2d 1070 (1981); Conley v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.2d 865 (Ky.1964); State v. Catanese, 368 So.2d 975 (La.1979); Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 394 A.2d 1213 (1978); ......
-
State v. Biddle
...v. State, 476 P.2d 474 (Alaska 1970); People v. Monigan, 72 Ill.App.3d 87, 28 Ill.Dec. 395, 390 N.E.2d 562 (1979); Conley v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.2d 865 (Ky.1964); State v. Corbin, 285 So.2d 234 (La.1973); Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 394 A.2d 1213 (1978); People v. Liddell, 63 Mich.Ap......