Everett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Everett v. State

872 So. 2d 341, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5251, 2004 WL 813286

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 2004

DocketNo. 2D03-405

StatusPublished

This text of 872 So. 2d 341 (Everett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Everett v. State, 872 So. 2d 341, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5251, 2004 WL 813286 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

Gregory Everett appeals from his judgment and life sentence for lewd and lascivious acts. He argues that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to cross-examine him about taking a polygraph examination. Although the mention of a polygraph examination may in some cases induce a mistrial or require a new trial, see Olivera v. State, 813 So.2d 996, 997-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), reversal is not required in this case be-

[342]*342cause Everett opened the door to questioning about the polygraph examination during his case-in-chief. See La Rocca v. State, 401 So.2d 866, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding that the mention of a polygraph examination does not compel reversal where the evidence was introduced by the defendant). In addition, the results of the examination were never mentioned. Cf. McFadden v. State, 540 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (stating that the mention of the results of a polygraph examination requires a mistrial). Finally, the trial court cured any possible error by giving a curative instruction to the jury explaining that the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible.

We find no merit to Everett’s additional points on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Everett’s judgment and sentence.

Affirmed. CANADY, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KELLY, Judge.

Gregory Everett appeals from his judgment and life sentence for lewd and lascivious acts. He argues that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to cross-examine him about taking a polygraph examination. Although the mention of a polygraph examination may in some cases induce a mistrial or require a new trial, see Olivera v. State, 813 So.2d 996, 997-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), reversal is not required in this case be-

[342]*342cause Everett opened the door to questioning about the polygraph examination during his case-in-chief. See La Rocca v. State, 401 So.2d 866, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding that the mention of a polygraph examination does not compel reversal where the evidence was introduced by the defendant). In addition, the results of the examination were never mentioned. Cf. McFadden v. State, 540 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (stating that the mention of the results of a polygraph examination requires a mistrial). Finally, the trial court cured any possible error by giving a curative instruction to the jury explaining that the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible.

We find no merit to Everett’s additional points on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Everett’s judgment and sentence.

Affirmed. CANADY, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 So. 2d 341, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5251, 2004 WL 813286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack