State v. Woo
| Citation | 84 Wn.2d 472,527 P.2d 271 |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 43097,43098,s. 43097 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. Danny WOO and Donald G. Louie, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Christopher T. Bayley, Pros. Atty., Frederick L. Yeatts, Gerald M. Lorentson, Seattle, for petitioner.
Walthew, Warner, Keefe, Arron, Costello & Thompson, Thomas P. Keefe, Seattle, for respondents.
The respondents (hereinafter defendants) were charged separately with multiple counts of bribing a public officer. At separate omnibus hearings, held pursuant to CrR 4.5, counsel for each defendant proposed stipulations for polygraph examination that generally provided for: (1) Court appointment of a 'qualified' impartial polygraph operator; (2) a member of the prosecuting attorney's staff, the defendant's attorney, and a designated judge of the Superior Court to agree upon and draft questions to be propounded to the defendant by the polygraph operator; and (3) the recorded polygraph readings, and opinion of the polygraph operator based thereon, to be admissible in evidence at the discretion of the trial judge.
The state refused to stipulate, and the defendants brought the matter on by separate motions.
Despite the lack of stipulation, the defendants' motions were granted over the state's objection. In addition, the omnibus hearing judge ordered the state to pay half the cost of each polygraph examination. The orders of the omnibus hearing judge are before us on separate writs of certiorari, consolidated for review. There being no adequate support in the record for the orders, we reverse.
The general rule, followed almost without exception since Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923), is that the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible at trial. Courts in several jurisdictions have, however, found such results admissible upon Stipulation by both the defense and the prosecution. State v. Ross, 7 Wash.App. 62, 497 P.2d 1343 (1972); State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P.2d 894 (1962); State v. Fields, 434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo.1968); People v. Zazzetta, 27 Ill.2d 302, 189 N.E.2d 260 (1963); State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d 730, 216 N.W.2d 8 (1974). Nevertheless, the latter cases are of little assistance, there being no stipulation in the instant case.
Defendants have asked us to decide whether polygraph tests administered pursuant to stipulation are admissible at trial. There being no stipulation, however, the issue is not before us and we decline the invitation.
Absent a stipulation the state opts for adherence to the general rule against admissibility. Defendants, on the other hand, urge us to review the current status of polygraphic evidence in light of new techniques and improvements in polygraph examinations. In support of their joint position, defendants cite three recent federal cases which have allowed the use of polygraphic evidence without stipulation. None are in point.
First, United States v. Hart, 344 F.Supp. 522 (E.D.N.Y.1971), actually dealt with the government's duty, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), to disclose evidence which may tend to exculpate the defendant. In Hart the principal witness for the prosecution had submitted to a polygraph test at the government's request. The test indicated he was lying, which the government knew before putting him on the stand. The court ruled that the polygraph test results were admissible under the Brady principle and that the government had the burden of convincing the jury that the test was of no significance. On the other hand, The results of tests administered to the defendants were held to be inadmissible. Clearly, this does not support defendants' position.
Second, United States v. Ridling, 350 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.Mich.1972) was a perjury case. The court viewed the expert testimony on polygraph results as opinion rather than scientific evidence. McCormick on Evidence, 505 (2d ed. 1972). After hearing evidence 'from persons who are experts in the use of polygraphs to establish the value...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martin
...Breathalyzer ampoules and polygraph examinations. See State v. Canaday, 90 Wash.2d 808, 812-13, 585 P.2d 1185 (1978); State v. Woo, 84 Wash.2d 472, 527 P.2d 271 (1974). Scientists in the field must make the initial determination whether an experimental principle is reliable and accurate. St......
-
State v. Rupe
...(1982), State v. Young, 89 Wash.2d 613, 574 P.2d 1171, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870, 99 S.Ct. 200, 58 L.Ed.2d 182 (1978), State v. Woo, 84 Wash.2d 472, 527 P.2d 271 (1974). Defendant distinguishes these cases by noting that his case, unlike those cited, raises a Sixth Amendment issue concerni......
-
State v. Conner
...(1975); Fulton v. State, 541 P.2d 871 (Okl.Cr.1975) (never admissible); Com v. Brooks, 454 Pa. 75, 309 A.2d 732 (1973); State v. Woo, 84 Wash.2d 472, 527 P.2d 271 (1974); State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d 730, 216 N.W.2d 8 (1974) (by stipulation only). All federal courts of appeals which hav......
-
State v. Grisby
...State v. Descoteaux, 94 Wash.2d 31, 614 P.2d 179 (1980). See State v. Renfro, 96 Wash.2d 902, 639 P.2d 737 (1982). In State v. Woo, 84 Wash.2d 472, 475, 527 P.2d 271 (1974), the court stated that if it were "furnished with a record sufficiently adequate to permit review of the subject", it ......
-
An Analytical View of Recent "lending of Credit" Decisions in Washington State
...See supra note 40 for an explanation of the parallel citations to this case. 143. Id. at 222, 527 P.2d at 266. 144. Id. at 230-31, 527 P.2d at 271; Health Care Facilities Auth. v. Ray, 93 Wash. 2d 108, 114, 605 P.2d 1260, 1263 145. See supra notes 34-39 and accompanying text. 146. Port of L......
-
The Admissibility of Cell Site Location Information in Washington Courts
...597. 125. E.g., State v. Martin, 684 P.2d 651, 654 (Wash. 1984) (affirming Washington's adherence to the Frye standard); State v. Woo, 527 P.2d 271, 272 (Wash. 1974) (adopting the Frye test in Washington); State v. Strauss, (In re Det. of Strauss), 20 P.3d 1022, 1025 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (......
-
Recovered Memories of Alleged Sexual Abuse: an Analysis of the Theory of Repressed Memories Under the Washington Rules of Evidence
...admissible); State v. Martin, 101 Wash. 2d 713, 684 P.2d 651 (1984) (hypnosis evidence inadmissible); State v. Woo, 84 Wash. 2d 472, 527 P.2d 271 (1974) (polygraph evidence inadmissible in the absence of stipulation by both parties); State v. Black, 109 Wash. 2d 336, 745 P.2d 12 (1987) (rap......