Robert E. Chavez v. State of New Mexico

Tenth Circuit

Robert E. Chavez v. State of New Mexico

456 F.2d 1072, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10835

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1972

Docket71-1432

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 1072 (Robert E. Chavez v. State of New Mexico) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert E. Chavez v. State of New Mexico, 456 F.2d 1072, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10835 (10th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery in the New Mexico courts and took an appeal. Before trial the appellant wanted to take a polygraph test, and upon stipulation that the results would be admissible, a test was conducted. The results were adverse and were admitted at his trial without objection. Appellant now maintains that the evidence was nevertheless inadmissible and that his rights under Miranda were not knowingly waived in view of the fact that the stipulation was made before the appellant was aware of the results of the test.

The rule in New Mexico is clear: the results of a polygraph test are not admissible over objection. State v. Trimble, 68 N.M. 406, 362 P.2d 788 (1961). However, no objection was here made. See this appellant’s appeal, State v. Chavez, 80 N.M. 786, 461 P.2d 919 (1969).

Appellant urges, however, that he has been denied his constitutional right against self-incrimination because the test results were admitted without the appellant having been informed of his rights under Miranda. We however do not decide whether any warning was *1073 required in regard to the polygraph test, but in any event considering the sequence of events, waiver did not become pertinent until the appellant failed to object to admissibility upon the introduction of the evidence. Then a failure to make a proper and timely objection to this evidence now claimed to be objectionable would under these facts constitute a waiver. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Moreland v. United States, 270 F.2d 887 (10th Cir.). Appellant cannot be heard to complain now.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery in the New Mexico courts and took an appeal. Before trial the appellant wanted to take a polygraph test, and upon stipulation that the results would be admissible, a test was conducted. The results were adverse and were admitted at his trial without objection. Appellant now maintains that the evidence was nevertheless inadmissible and that his rights under Miranda were not knowingly waived in view of the fact that the stipulation was made before the appellant was aware of the results of the test.

The rule in New Mexico is clear: the results of a polygraph test are not admissible over objection. State v. Trimble, 68 N.M. 406, 362 P.2d 788 (1961). However, no objection was here made. See this appellant’s appeal, State v. Chavez, 80 N.M. 786, 461 P.2d 919 (1969).

Appellant urges, however, that he has been denied his constitutional right against self-incrimination because the test results were admitted without the appellant having been informed of his rights under Miranda. We however do not decide whether any warning was *1073 required in regard to the polygraph test, but in any event considering the sequence of events, waiver did not become pertinent until the appellant failed to object to admissibility upon the introduction of the evidence. Then a failure to make a proper and timely objection to this evidence now claimed to be objectionable would under these facts constitute a waiver. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Moreland v. United States, 270 F.2d 887 (10th Cir.). Appellant cannot be heard to complain now.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 1072, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-e-chavez-v-state-of-new-mexico-ca10-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack