Mills v. People, 18869
Decision Date | 01 June 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 18869,18869 |
Citation | 139 Colo. 397,339 P.2d 998 |
Parties | Ernest Joseph MILLS, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE of State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Joseph A. Myers, V. G. Seavy, Jr., Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Norman H. Comstock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as defendant, was convicted of the crime of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. He seeks review on writ of error.
We find it unnecessary to set forth in this opinion the sordid details of the crime of which defendant was convicted. Suffice it to say that the evidence offered by the people was all circumstantial and for that reason the jury was not permitted to consider the death penalty. The record before us raises a clear-cut question, the answer to which requires a reversal of the judgment.
The testimony pertinent to the controlling question, which was admitted over objection of counsel for defendant, related to defendant's refusal to submit to a lie detector test. The witness Brooks testified that he arrested defendant in the State of Missouri. In the course of conversation the witness asked defendant if he would take a 'lie detector test.' Defendant replied that he would not. This evidence was offered and admitted on the theory that the refusal tended to show a 'consciousness of guilt.'
Question to be Determined.
In the trial of a criminal case can evidence of the fact the accused refused to submit to a lie detector test be admitted for consideration of the jury?
The question is answered in the negative. The attorney general with commendable frankness makes the following statement in his brief in connection with the pertinent issue:
Numerous decisions of courts of last resort throughout the nation have rejected evidence of this kind. Typical of the opinions which, without exception, have held that admission of such testimony requires reversal, is the case of State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 52 N.W.2d 458, 465, from which we quote the following:
'We have no doubt that the lie detector is valuable in investigative work of law enforcement agencies and may frequently lead to confessions or the discovery of facts which may ultimately lead to the solution of many crimes; but we are in accord with the rule that the lie detector has not yet attained such scientific and psychological accuracy, nor its operators such sureness of interpretation of results shown therefrom, as to justify submission thereof to a jury as evidence of the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime.
'The state concedes that the results of a lie-detector test would not be admissible, but contends that it may nevertheless be shown that defendant refused to take such test, since such refusal is evidence of a consciousness of guilt similar to evidence of flight. With this we cannot agree. Much the same proposition was advanced in People v. Wochnick, 98 Cal.App.2d 124, 219 P.2d 70, supra. In that case, an officer testified that defendant had been told that he had been placed on the lie detector for a test and that there was a violent reaction when he was shown a certain exhibit; and that when he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Driver
...of such test, if given after a proper foundation had been laid showing how the apparatus functioned.' See also, Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397, 339 P.2d 998 (Sup.Ct.1959); Commonwealth v. Saunders, 386 Pa. 149, 125 A.2d 442, 445, (Sup.Ct.1956); People v. Aragon, supra, 316 P.2d, at p. 379; ......
-
People v. Hogan
...(1966) 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600); accord, State v. Kolander (1952) 236 Minn. 209, 52 N.W.2d 458; Mills v. People (1959) 139 Colo. 397, 339 P.2d 998.) Far from rebutting the presumption of prejudice, the content of the inadmissible evidence reinforces the presumption. Whil......
-
Schmunk v. State, 84-176
...reference to the refusal was in a recorded, taped interview. State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406, 375 P.2d 585 (1962). In Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397, 339 P.2d 998 (1959), defendant, when asked, replied that he would not take a lie detector test. The evidence of refusal was admitted as showing ......
-
Proffit v. State, S-07-0257.
...these conditions, might well be more devastating than a disclosure of the results of such test * * *.'" Id. (quoting Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397, 339 P.2d 998, 999 (1959)). Beyond that, we have characterized the introduction of such evidence as "overzealous "All too frequently this court......