Hyder v. Superior Court

Arizona Supreme Court

Hyder v. Superior Court

617 P.2d 1152, 127 Ariz. 36, 1980 Ariz. LEXIS 274

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1980

DocketNo. 15041

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 617 P.2d 1152 (Hyder v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hyder v. Superior Court, 617 P.2d 1152, 127 Ariz. 36, 1980 Ariz. LEXIS 274 (Ark. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction of a Petition for Special Action brought by the Maricopa County Attorney. Prior to trial, the Superior Court ruled that evidence of polygraph examinations given to defendant would, after proper foundation, be admitted in evidence. The County Attorney objected urging that polygraph results are admissible only if so stipulated by both parties, citing State of Arizona v. Treadaway, 116 Ariz. 163, 568 P.2d 1061 (1977). By this action the state sought relief from the court’s ruling. We agree with the position taken by the state.

Since this point was decided in State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P.2d 894 (1962), the Arizona Supreme Court has consistently taken the position that polygraph evidence is inadmissible except by stipulation. The trial court, in ruling to the contrary, exceeded its jurisdiction.

Counsel for the defendant urges that the court’s ruling was based on an attempt to rectify a situation where the County Attorney had misled the defendant regarding a plea agreement. Acceptance of jurisdiction in this action contains no implication as to our position on the plea negotiations or actions of the parties regarding a plea agreement.

Relief sought by petitioner granted. Remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction of a Petition for Special Action brought by the Maricopa County Attorney. Prior to trial, the Superior Court ruled that evidence of polygraph examinations given to defendant would, after proper foundation, be admitted in evidence. The County Attorney objected urging that polygraph results are admissible only if so stipulated by both parties, citing State of Arizona v. Treadaway, 116 Ariz. 163, 568 P.2d 1061 (1977). By this action the state sought relief from the court’s ruling. We agree with the position taken by the state.

Since this point was decided in State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P.2d 894 (1962), the Arizona Supreme Court has consistently taken the position that polygraph evidence is inadmissible except by stipulation. The trial court, in ruling to the contrary, exceeded its jurisdiction.

Counsel for the defendant urges that the court’s ruling was based on an attempt to rectify a situation where the County Attorney had misled the defendant regarding a plea agreement. Acceptance of jurisdiction in this action contains no implication as to our position on the plea negotiations or actions of the parties regarding a plea agreement.

Relief sought by petitioner granted. Remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 P.2d 1152, 127 Ariz. 36, 1980 Ariz. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyder-v-superior-court-ariz-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack