State v. Cunningham, 75--1004
| Decision Date | 23 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1004,75--1004 |
| Citation | 324 So.2d 173 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Timothy Daniel CUNNINGHAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.
Gerald Kogan, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellee, Cunningham, was charged by information with the robbery of the Overhead Door Company. He protested his innocence and, during the pendency of this matter, his counsel and the State stipulated that he would submit to a polygraph examination, the results of which would be introduced into trial of that proceeding.
During the examination, the polygraph operator interrogated Cunningham as to whether or not he had ever killed anyone. At the conclusion of the test, the polygraph operator informed Cunningham that he was lying about not having killed anyone that this would have an effect on the results of his test as to whether or not he had committed the robbery of the Overhead Door Company. Whereupon, Cunningham admitted that he had been involved in a robbery some years previous, which had resulted in the death of an individual. Subsequently, the polygraph operator informed the State of this admission and the State then instituted first degree murder proceedings against Cunningham as a result of the information learned by the polygraph operator conducting the test. Cunningham's counsel in the murder prosecution filed a motion to suppress any statements during the trial received by the polygraph operator at the time he conducted the test. The trial judge granted the motion and this appeal ensued. We affirm.
Generally, polygraph tests and the information gleaned therefrom are not admissible evidence in any criminal proceeding. Kaminski v. State, Fla.1952, 63 So.2d 339; Anderson v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So.2d 390; Sullivan v. State, Fla.1974, 303 So.2d 632. The results may be admitted into evidence upon stipulation between the State and defense counsel. State v. Brown, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 532; Askary v. State, Fla.App.1974, 294 So.2d 33; Moore v. State, Fla.App.1974, 299 So.2d 119. The sole purpose of the stipulation entered into in the Overhead Door Company case related to permissible evidence in that cause and in no other. Therefore, we hold that the trial judge properly suppressed any information obtained during the giving of the polygraph test by the operator. Compare ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...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, 107-08 (1976); Rogers v. Commonwealth, 86 S.W.3d 29, 36 (Ky.2002); Commonwe......
-
Moreno v. State
...Collins v. Wainwright, 311 So.2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); results of polygraph examination in absence of stipulation, State v. Cunningham, 324 So.2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). ...
-
State v. Blosser
...See also Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840. The single exception we have found to this array of authority is State v. Cunningham, Fla.App., 324 So.2d 173, a decision in which one of the three judges cogently dissented. The defendant in the case had agreed to submit to a polygraph......
-
Pendleton v. State, 76-1566
...trial court, in excluding evidence that the defendant passed a polygraph examination concerning his guilt, followed State v. Cunningham (3 D.C.A. Fla.1975), 324 So.2d 173, wherein generally, polygraph test and information gleaned therefrom are not admissible evidence in any criminal proceed......