State v. Mick
| Decision Date | 27 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 28401,28401 |
| Citation | 546 S.W.2d 508 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roberta J. MICK, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Larson, Public Defender, Lee M. Nation, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Christopher R. Brewster, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and SWOFFORD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.
Defendant was charged by information with robbery, first degree, by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon (Sections 560.120 and 560.135, RSMo 1969). A jury found defendant guilty as charged and fixed her punishment at eight years imprisonment.
An abbreviated statement of facts will suffice as there was substantial evidence to support the verdict returned by the jury--defendant does not contend otherwise. Defendant, acting in concert with a companion, was positively identified as one of two persons who committed an armed robbery on February 20, 1975, at the Cirise Investment Company located at 3411 East 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri.
Defendant's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to question her about the results of a polygraph examination. The trial context in which this point arose is as follows. Defendant, in response to a question on redirect examination regarding her delay in informing the police of a claimed alibi, volunteered the following: '. . . This is the reason that I was there talking to Detective Dawson, and set up with him to take this polygraph test and everything, that I later talked to you about. . . .' (Emphasis supplied.) Over defendant's objection the state was permitted to pursue the following line of questioning during its recross-examination of defendant:
'Q You mentioned you had a polygraph examination; did you take a polygraph examination?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know what the results of the polygraph examination were?
A Yes.
Q What were they?
A They said I failed it.'
It is the general rule in this state that the results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible as evidence because they lack scientific support for their reliability. State v. Weindorff, 351 S.W.2d 806, 811 (Mo.1962); State v. Cole, 354 Mo. 181, 188 S.W.2d 43, 51, 189 S.W.2d 541 (1945); and State v. Jacks, 525 S.W.2d 431, 435 (Mo.App.1975). However anomalous it may be, the parties, by stipulation, may waive objections to the admission of polygraph examinations and their results, and in that sense imbue them with reliability and probative value. State v. Fields, 434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo.1968).
Section 546.260, RSMo 1969, provides in part, that a defendant in a criminal case who testifies in his own behalf '. . . shall be liable to cross-examination, as to any matter feferred to in his examination in chief . . .' This statutory provision has been interpreted as permitting the state to cross-examine a defendant in detail with respect to matters about which he testified during the course of his direct examination. State v. Dalton, 433 S.W.2d 562, 563--64 (Mo.1968); State v. Moser, 423 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Mo.1968); and State v. Rice, 519 S.W.2d 573, 575 (Mo.App.1975). Concomitantly, authority exists in this state that a defendant who chooses to take the stand and testify in his own behalf may not complain of being cross-examined on a matter otherwise deemed inadmissible if the matter upon which he is being cross-examined was injected by him into evidence during the course of his direct examination. State v. Warters, 457 S.W.2d 808, 816 (Mo.1970); and State v. Carson, 239 S.W.2d 532, 537--38 (Mo.App.1951).
Although no cases have been found applying the foregoing principle--that a defendant cannot complain of being cross-examined on an otherwise inadmissible matter if he himself injected the inadmissible matter during his direct examination--to a factual situation matching the one at hand, 1 defendant has failed to come...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Vitello
...agreements "imbue" the polygraph test with reliability and probative value where such qualities are otherwise lacking. State v. Mick, 546 S.W.2d 508, 509 (Mo.App.1976). Such fanciful notions cannot, of course, be credited. 21 "If such tests are as unpredictable and misleading as the courts ......
-
State v. Biddle
...of scientific support for their reliability, where the defendant has waived objections to admissibility by stipulation. In State v. Mick, 546 S.W.2d 508 (Mo.App.1976), the court of appeals stated, citing Fields, "However anomalous it may be, the parties by stipulation, may waive objections ......
-
State v. Walker, 40479
...S.W.2d 304 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Roberts, 547 S.W.2d 500 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Faught, 546 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Mick, 546 S.W.2d 508 (Mo.App.1976). Now, under State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d at 191, polygraph evidence is inadmissible, in spite of stipulations to the contrary, ......
-
State v. Walker
...(Mo.App.1977); State v. Roberts, 547 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Faught, 546 S.W.2d 515, 516 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Mick, 546 S.W.2d 508, 509 (Mo.App.1976). ...