Davis v. State

• Decision Date: 25 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 69677,69677
• Citation: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 157,520 So.2d 572
• Parties: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 157 Charles Seaton DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 572

520 So.2d 572

13 Fla. L. Weekly 157

Charles Seaton DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 69677.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 25, 1988.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Thomas F. Ball III, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Deborah Guller, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

KOGAN, Justice.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as being one of great public importance:

WHEN POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED BY STIPULATION, AND A PARTY REQUESTS A PROPER INSTRUCTION ON THE SCIENTIFIC UNRELIABILITY OF POLYGRAPH RESULTS, IS IT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO FAIL TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY?

Davis v. State, 516 So.2d 953, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). This Court has jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the question in the negative and approve the result reached by the district court.

Charles Davis, a restaurant manager, was charged with grand theft after repeatedly failing to deposit the daily receipts into the restaurant owner's bank account. Prior to trial, the prosecutor and defense counsel orally stipulated to the admissibility of the results of a polygraph examination taken by Davis. During trial, the polygraph operator testified as an expert and concluded that Davis had "attempted deception" while responding to certain questions. Id. at 954. Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's questions directed toward explaining the theory and workings of the polygraph on the grounds that the parties had agreed to the admissibility of the results only. Id. The objection was overruled and the examiner was permitted to testify as to his qualifications, the theory of the polygraph, Davis' actual examination, the reliability of the polygraph in general and in comparison with other forensic sciences, and the calibration and maintenance of the machine. The examiner was also permitted to exhibit the polygram. Defense counsel cross examined the polygraph operator and elicited certain negative statements concerning the reliability of the polygraph, including the operator's concurrence with the proposition that polygraph results are considered unreliable to the extent that they are not normally admissible without both parties stipulating to their admission.

At the close of the evidence, Davis' counsel requested a three paragraph jury instruction detailing the unreliability of polygraph test results. The trial court refused to give the requested instruction, finding that to do so would be to comment on the evidence. Instead, the judge gave the standard jury instruction on expert witnesses, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases § 2.04(a). ^* During closing argument, defense counsel discussed the unreliability of polygraph results. Nevertheless, the jury convicted Davis of grand theft.

The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the trial court decision and held that although defense counsel's requested instruction was "argumentative, misleading, and far too negative," the judge should have given a proper instruction on the manner in which the jury should consider and treat the polygraph evidence. Davis v. State, 9 F.L.W. 2589 (4th DCA Dec. 12, 1984). On rehearing, en banc, the fourth district vacated its prior opinion and affirmed the trial court decision. Davis v. State, 516 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The district court acknowledged that its prior opinion conflicted with its decision in Taylor v. State, 350 So.2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1978), and with our decision in Carron v. State, 427 So.2d 192 (Fla.1983), which held that where a requested instruction is improper, a court does not commit reversible error in refusing it. Relying on Carron, the en banc court concluded: "[W]hen polygraph evidence is admitted by stipulation, and a party requested proper instruction on the subject, it should be given. If an improper instruction is requested, the trial court is not required to fashion one." 516 So.2d at 956.

Petitioner contends the stipulation involved here only allowed admission of the "pass or fail" results of the polygraph test, and not the opinion testimony of the polygraph operator. He further contends that the expert opinion instruction did not give sufficient direction to the jury as to the reliability of, and weight to be given, polygraph results.

We first address the admissibility of the examiner's testimony regarding his qualifications, the theory of the polygraph, his interpretation of the polygram, the reliability of polygraph testing, the "scientific" process used in this case, and the proper calibration and maintenance of the machine. We reject petitioner's argument that the state's attempt to "bolster" the reliability of the polygraph results through the testimony of the polygraph expert was improper given our finding that polygraph tests are inherently unreliable.

The courts of this state have repeatedly held that the factors contributing to the results of a polygraph test--the skill of the operator, the emotional state of the person tested, the fallibility of the machine, and the lack of a specific quantitative relationship between physiological and emotional states--are such that the polygraph cannot be recognized as a sufficiently reliable or valid instrument to warrant its use in judicial proceedings unless both sides agree to its use. Farmer v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 427 So.2d 187, 190-191 (Fla.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 816, 104 S.Ct. 74, 78 L.Ed.2d 86 (1983). Furthermore, we have held that polygraph evidence may be admitted upon the oral or written stipulation of the parties. Codie v. State, 313 So.2d 754 (Fla.1975).

In 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), we stated:

The use of a polygraph examination as evidence is premised on the waiver by both parties of evidentiary objections as to lack of scientific reliability. The evidence fails to show that the polygraph examination has gained such reliability and scientific recognition in Florida as to warrant its admissibility. The Florida rule of inadmissibility reflects state...