Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46819,46819 |
| Citation | 500 S.W.2d 167 |
| Parties | David Earl LEWIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jake Cook (Court appointed), Fort Worth, for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
JACKSON, Commissioner.
The conviction was for robbery by assault; the punishment, ten (10) years.
The first ground of error presented by appellant is that the court erred in admitting in evidence before the jury the results of a polygraph examination of appellant.
Before the polygraph examination, both appellant and his attorney signed a written instrument requesting such examination, and agreeing that the examiner might testify at the trial to the questions, responses and his opinions as to the truthfulness of the answers. Nevertheless, objections were made at the trial, which were overruled by the court, and the examiner was permitted to testify fully as to all such matters, including his opinion that appellant was lying when he denied participation in the robbery.
In the light of Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), an exhaustive opinion of this Court prepared by Presiding Judge Onion, we sustain this ground of error and must reverse and remanded for a new trial. 1
We quote from that opinion:
'This court has followed the almost unanimous view of American courts concerning the admissibility of the results of a polygraph test.
'In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote:
'It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant." Citing many cases.
In Romero, there was also an agreement to stipulate the results, and on that subject, the Court said:
This is still the rule here.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinion approved by the Court.
1 The trial court did not have the benefit of Romero at the time of this trial, it having not then been decided.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...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. Pfender, 280 Pa.Super. 417, 421 A.2d 791 (1980); ......
-
Crawford v. State
...for any purpose. Reed v. State, 522 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); King v. State, 511 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Lewis v. State, 500 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The prosecutor had no duty whatever to rely on such inadmissible and potentia......
-
People v. Baynes
...of admissibility. (State v. Corbin (La.1973), 285 So.2d 234; Fulton v. State (Okla.Crim.App.1975), 541 P.2d 871; Lewis v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1973), 500 S.W.2d 167; Pulakis v. State (Alaska 1970), 476 P.2d 474, 479; State v. Gagne (Me.1975), 343 A.2d 186, 192; People v. Ranes (1975), 63 Mic......
-
State v. Catanese
...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).Those jurisdictions which admit polygraph evidence by stipulation reason that if a defendant agrees to the admission of po......