Hostzclaw v. State
| Decision Date | 22 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 50431,50431 |
| Parties | Wesley Anthony HOSTZCLAW, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. Michael Burman of Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and Stephen R. Koons, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
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 several statements made by him during and subsequent to the grand jury investigation of the murder.
The trial court granted in part and denied in part the motion to suppress certain designated statements. Respondent appealed, and petitioner cross-appealed this order. The District Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the trial court under review and expressly determined, inter alia, relative to suppression of petitioner's statements to the polygraph operator after the polygraph was concluded, that there is no difference between an incriminating statement made to a polygraph operator after completion of a polygraph examination and an incriminating statement made freely and voluntarily to any other officer and that, therefore, the voluntary statements made to the polygraph operator after completion of the polygraph examination should not have been suppressed. The District Court concluded that petitioner's cross-assignments of error were without merit and that the trial court's finding that immunity was not granted is supported by the record.
This Court granted certiorari because of apparent conflict with State v. Cunningham, supra, as to suppression of statements made to the polygraph operator after examination. The only issue warranting discussion involves whether appellee's admissions to the polygraph operator should be suppressed.
In Cunningham, supra, the Third District Court of Appeal held that, although the results of a polygraph may be admitted into evidence upon stipulation between the state and defense counsel, generally polygraph tests and information gleaned therefrom are not admissible in criminal proceedings.
Petitioner submits that the same rationale applied to statements made during the tests disallowing admissibility should be applied to statements made immediately thereafter and as a direct result thereof. We do not agree with petitioner but, rather, find that the District Court, in the instant cause, decided the question correctly.
The Second District Court of Appeal, in Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798, 801-802 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1964), opined:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...statements made during a polygraph must be excluded merely because they were given during a polygraph examination. See Hostzclaw v. State, 351 So.2d 970, 971-72 (Fla.1977), overruling State v. Cunningham, 324 So.2d 173 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975); State v. Blosser, 221 Kan. 59, 558 P.2d 105, 107......
-
Roth v. State, 76-2357
...court's conclusions that the statements made during the pre-test interview were admissible at the defendant's trial. See Hostzclaw v. State, 351 So.2d 970 (Fla.1977); Burch v. State, 343 So.2d 831 (Fla.1977); People v. Mason, 29 Ill.App.3d 121, 329 N.E.2d 794, 798 (Ill.App.1975); Johnson v.......
-
Shade v. State
...requested an attorney nor did he ask for interrogation to cease. Burch, supra at page 832. The Florida Supreme Court in Hostzclaw v. State, 351 So.2d 970 (Fla.1977) approving State v. Hostzclaw, 351 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), also upheld a post-polygraph confession stating that there w......
-
State v. Fuller, 79-1329
...statements made to a polygraph operator are admissible notwithstanding the legal inadmissibility of the results. See e.g., Hostzclaw v. State, 351 So.2d 970 (Fla.1977); Burch v. State, 343 So.2d 831 (Fla.1977); Roberts v. State, 195 So.2d 257 (Fla.2d DCA 1967); Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 7......
-
Other Grounds for Suppressing Confessions
...inding there is nothing inherently coercive about lie detection tests. Examples of cases permitting this include Hostzclaw v. State , 351 So.2d 970 (1977); State v. Blosser , 558 P.2d 105 (Kan. 1976); Rogers v. Commonwealth , 86 S.W. 3d 29 (Ky. 2002); State v. Blank , 955 So.2d 90 (La. 2007......
-
Other Grounds for Suppressing Confessions
...inding there is nothing inherently coercive about lie detection tests. Examples of cases permitting this include Hostzclaw v. State , 351 So.2d 970 (1977); State v. Blosser , 558 P.2d 105 (Kan. 1976); Rogers v. Commonwealth , 86 S.W. 3d 29 (Ky. 2002); State v. Blank , 955 So.2d 90 (La. 2007......
-
Other grounds for suppressing confessions
...finding there is nothing inherently coercive about lie detection tests. Examples of cases permitting this include Hostzclaw v. State , 351 So.2d 970 (1977); State v. Blosser , 558 P.2d 105 (Kan. 1976); Rogers v. Commonwealth , 86 S.W. 3d 29 (Ky. 2002); State v. Blank , 955 So.2d 90 (La. 200......
-
Other grounds for suppressing confessions
...inding there is nothing inherently coercive about lie detection tests. Examples of cases permitting this include Hostzclaw v. State , 351 So.2d 970 (1977); State v. Blosser , 558 P.2d 105 (Kan. 1976); Rogers v. Commonwealth , 86 S.W. 3d 29 (Ky. 2002); State v. Blank , 955 So.2d 90 (La. 2007......