State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 27 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 5358,5358 |
| Citation | 178 N.E.2d 605,113 Ohio App. 461 |
| Parties | , 18 O.O.2d 19 STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The admission of testimony at the trial of a criminal case relating to the submission of the accused to a lie detector test, even though the results thereof are not disclosed, constitutes prejudicial error.
Cubbon & Rice, Toledo, for appellant.
Harry Friberg, Pros. Atty., Toledo, for appellee.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment and sentence of defendant-appellant upon a verdict of the jury finding defendant guilty of sodomy. The principal error assigned is the admission of testimony pertaining to a polygraph test given defendant.
Upon direct examination of a state highway patrolman, who had interviewed the defendant after his arrest, the following transpired:
'Now Officer Blay, did you ask him at that time whether or not he would take a polygraph test which is a lie detector test?
'Mr. Ischler: Objection.
'The Court: Overruled.
'A. Yes, I did.
'Q. What was his response? A. He replied 'Yes' and I said 'If the lie detector says you have committed sodomy do you then believe it?' and his answer was 'yes.'
'Mr. Ischler: Move that be stricken.
'The Court: May go out.'
Upon cross-examination, the defendant was interrogated as follows:
'Mr. Ischler: Objection.
'The Court: Overruled.
'Mr. Ischler: Exception.
'
'
'Mr. Ischler: Objection.
'The Court: Overruled.
'Mr. Ischler: Exception.
'
The courts of this country almost uniformly reject the results of lie detector tests when offered in evidence by either a defendant or the prosecution for the purpose of establishing the innocence or guilt of the accused because the lie detector has not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. 23 A.L.R.2d 1308, and authorities cited from California, District of Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. See also A.L.R.2d 1960 Supplement, p. 1998, citing additional recent authorities.
The only Ohio case which has come to our attention is Parker v. Friendt, 99 Ohio App. 329, 118 N.E.2d 216, a civil case, wherein the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County follows the uniform rule that the results of such tests are inadmissible. Also see paragraph 5 of the syllabus in State v. Sheppard, 100 Ohio App. 399, 128 N.E.2d 504, excluding expert testimony of the result of a blood test offered by defendant. In addition to the factor that such tests lack scientific reliability, the introduction of the results of such tests usurps the function which a jury has traditionally exercised throughout the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.
But the question presented here is whether mention of the fact that a lie detector test was taken, without disclosure of its results, prejudices the defendant. In general, the injection into a trial of an extraneous issue is erroneous. Thus, evidence in a personal injury action that a defendant carries liability insurance is inadmissible because such evidence is irrelevant and has a tendency to adversely influence the jury. And, depending on the circumstances, admission of such evidence may be prejudicial, requiring reversal of the judgment. 4 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 106-108, 191, 198-199; see also page 226.
An inquiry into facts entirely collateral, leading to controversy over matters foreign to the prosecution, is not to be permitted. Cf. Devere v. State, 5 Ohio Cir.Ct.R., 509, 3 Ohio Cir.Dec., 249. Thus the general rule, with many exceptions, is that in the prosecution of one offense, it is not competent to prove that an accused has committed another separate, independent offense, for the purpose of showing that he committed the particular offense with which he stands charged. Each case must be tried on its own merits, and be determined by the circumstances connected thereto. 15 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 518, Section 349. Testimony of collateral facts tends to draw away the minds of the jurors from the point in issue, and also tends to excite prejudice and mislead the jurors. 15 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 520, Section 350. Notwithstanding that the accused or a witness may be cross-examined with respect to his prior conviction of crime under Section 2945.42, Revised Code, inquiry with respect to prior arrest or conviction of a misdemeanor or municipal ordinance is improper and constitutes prejudicial error. Kornreich v. Industrial Fire Ins. Co., 132 Ohio St. 78, 90, 5 N.E.2d 153; State v. Hickman, 102 Ohio App. 78, 141 N.E.2d 202; City of Troy v. Cummins, 107 Ohio App. 318, 159 N.E.2d 239; State v. Rodriguez, 110 Ohio App. 307, 169 N.E.2d 444; Chambers v. Robert, 110 Ohio App. 472, 166 N.E.2d 530. Contra: State v. Carter, 75 Ohio App. 545, 58 N.E.2d 794.
By way of further example of the possible prejudicial effect of admitting testimony on an extraneous matter, see the recent case of Commonwealth v. Truitt (1951) 369 Pa. 72, 85 A.2d 425, 30 A.L.R.2d 572, holding that the admission of evidence pertaining to communistic connections with the union to which the defendant belonged constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
Coming now to the specific question presented, whether the admission of testimony in the instant case constitutes error,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barbara
...truth from falsity. * * * I am not prepared to rule that the jury system is as yet outmoded."See also, State v. Smith, 113 Ohio App. 461, 463, 178 N.E.2d 605, 607 (1960). McCormick wrote: "The exclusion seems to rest more upon a judicial estimate of the weight that the trier of fact will gi......
-
State v. Carter
...as to defendant's guilt or innocence." Id. , citing State v. Hegel , 9 Ohio App.2d 12, 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964) ; State v. Smith , 113 Ohio App. 461, 465, 178 N.E.2d 605 (1960). Id. at ¶ 21. "It is well established in Ohio that the results of a polygraph test are not admissible to show the gui......
-
State v. Catanese
...Leone, 25 N.Y.2d 511, 307 N.Y.S.2d 430, 255 N.E.2d 696 (1969); People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348, 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); State v. Smith, 113 Ohio App. 461, 178 N.E.2d 605 (1960). Our own appellate experience with P.E.I. tests and other scientific evidence reflects a concern over the apparent re......
-
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 16077.
...awareness of the normal rule against testimony as to whether such a test has been taken. Ohio follows these rules, State v. Smith, 113 Ohio App. 461, 178 N.E.2d 605 (1960). Sophisticated trial counsel will readily recall many occasions when they have deliberately withheld objection to inadm......