Fulton v. State, F--75--335
| Decision Date | 08 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. F--75--335,F--75--335 |
| Citation | 541 P.2d 871 |
| Parties | Billy FULTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Billy Fulton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Okfuskee County, Case No. CRF--74--24, for the offense of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1974, § 701.1, 9. In accordance with the provisions of 21 O.S.Supp.1974, § 701.3, the defendant was thereafter sentenced to suffer death, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
We deem it unnecessary to recite the facts inasmuch as the case must be reversed in light of the defendant's fourth assignment of error.
The defendant's fourth assignment of error asserts the trial court erred in permitting testimony concerning a polygraph examination of the State's witness Willie Paul Smith. We observe that the District Attorney first attempted to interject the results of a polygraph examination in the State's case in chief at which time the defendant objected with said objection being sustained. However, the record reflects that later in the trial, during State's rebuttal evidence, extensive testimony concerning the giving of a polygraph examination and the results thereof was admitted into evidence over repeated objection by defendant. The defendant urges, and we agree, that this Court has repeatedly held that results of lie detector tests are not admissible, citing Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45, 230 P.2d 495 (1951); Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326, 245 P.2d 764 (1952); Looper v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 1018 (1963); Mullins v. Page, Okl.Cr., 443 P.2d 773 (1968); and, Vetter v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 1400 (1973).
In the situation where all parties in the cause stipulate to the admission of results of a polygraph examination, this Court has held that it is within the discretion of the trial court to admit such evidence. See, Castleberry v. State, Okl.Cr., 522 P.2d 257 (1974) and Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 527 P.2d 169 (1974). However, in light of the potential unreliability of polygraph examinations at this time, we feel that in all future cases the introduction into evidence of polygraph examination results for any purpose, even if admitted upon stipulation of all parties, will be error. This holding departs from our previous decisions in Castleberry, supra, and Jones, supra, therefore, Castleberry, supra, and Jones, supra, and all other cases, are overruled insofar as they are inconsistent with the views expressed today. This Court elucidated in Leeks v. State, supra, speaking to the admission of results of lie detector tests, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...474 (Alaska 1970); State v. Corbin, 285 So.2d 234 (La 1973); People v. Liddell, 63 Mich.App. 491, 234 N.W.2d 669 (1975); Fulton v. State, 541 P.2d 871 (Okl.Cr.1975); Lewis v. State, 500 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 211 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Commonwealth v. Pfe......
-
Com. v. Mendes
...evidence and then, on reexamination, decided not to do so. See 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. Dean, 103 Wis.2d 228, 307 N.W.2d 628 (1981). Still other jurisdictions in large number have dealt with cases in wh......
-
State v. Conner
...Warden, Nev. State Prison v. Lischko, 523 P.2d 6 (Nev.1974); State v. Jackson, 287 N.C. 470, 215 S.E.2d 123 (1975); Fulton v. State, 541 P.2d 871 (Okl.Cr.1975) (never admissible); Com v. Brooks, 454 Pa. 75, 309 A.2d 732 (1973); State v. Woo, 84 Wash.2d 472, 527 P.2d 271 (1974); State v. Sta......
-
State v. Dean
...evidence on stipulation and determined that the potential unreliability of the polygraph dictated its total exclusion. Fulton v. Oklahoma, 541 P.2d 871 (Okl.Cr.1975). See also Commonwealth v. Pfender, 421 A.2d 791 (Pa.Super.1980); Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54 Essentially the view taken ......