State v. Brown, 5793

Citation177 So.2d 532
Decision Date04 August 1965
Docket NumberNo. 5793,5793
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Willie BROWN, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.

Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Marcus A. Wilkinson, III, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee.

ANDREWS, Judge.

The defendant Willie Brown was convicted of robbery. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a new trial, from which order the State appeals.

The State presented a strong case against the defendant by witnesses of the flight of the robber from the scene of the crime, identification of the defendant, and circumstantial evidence in the form of clothing worn by the robber.

The Public Defender presented a strong defense of alibi by numerous witnesses testifying that the defendant had worked on the day of the crime, was not absent from his work at the time the crime was committed, and in fact was at lunch with one of his fellow workers at about the time the crime was shown to be committed.

These facts presented to the jury two equally creditable theories of the case: the first pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, and the other pointing unerringly to the innocence of the accused. On motion for new trial, the court entertained some doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, and as a result the attorneys for the parties agreed that the defendant should be given the so-called 'lie detector or polygraph test.'

The results of the first test showed that the defendant was telling the truth in that he did not commit the crime. The prosecutor was not satisfied with the test, and a second test was given, which resulted in a showing that the defendant was not telling the truth. The court then ordered a third test, which showed that the defendant was telling the truth.

Such tests are generally not adinissible in evidence and should be excluded upon the objection of any party. Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 798; Kaminski v. State, 1956, Fla., 63 So.2d 339. The court, however, in the Johnson v. State case, supra, quoted with approval the case of State v. Valdez, 1962, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P.2d 894, holding that such tests are admissible where the parties stipulate as to their admissibility. In the case before the court here, we are not confronted with the same question, but the same rules should apply in that the parties stipulated, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • People v. Barbara
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1977
    ...v. McDavitt, 62 N.J. 36, 297 A.2d 849, 854-855 (1972); People v. Houser, 85 Cal.App.2d 686, 193 P.2d 937, 942 (1948); State v. Brown, 177 So.2d 532, 533 (Fla.App.1965); State v. Freeland, 255 Iowa 1334, 125 N.W.2d 825, 828 (1964) (allowed admission by joint stipulation, but rejected orderin......
  • Romero v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 18, 1973
    ...People v. Houser, 85 Cal.App.2d 686, 193 P.2d 937 (1948); People v. Davis, 270 Cal.App.2d 841, 76 Cal.Rptr. 242 (1969); State v. Brown, 177 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.2d 1965); State v. Freeland, 255 Iowa 1334, 125 N.W.2d 825 (1964); State v. Galloway, 167 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa Sup.1969); State v. Lowry,......
  • Delap v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1983
    ...admissibility. Anderson v. State, 241 So.2d 390 (Fla.1970), vacated, 408 U.S. 938, 92 S.Ct. 2868, 33 L.Ed.2d 758 (1972); State v. Brown, 177 So.2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Defendant challenges this stipulation or consent requirement as an arbitrary evidentiary rule which operates to deny him......
  • Baker v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1976
    ...319 So.2d at 610. Petitioner alleges a conflict between the District Court's decision in this case and the decision in State v. Brown, 177 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.2d 1965). As in the present case, the prosecution in State v. Brown, supra, appealed an order granting a new trial, after a robbery c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT