State v. Narval Hardware

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Narval Hardware

868 So. 2d 574, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1312, 2004 WL 305954

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 2004

DocketNos. 3D03-2971, 3D03-2972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 868 So. 2d 574 (State v. Narval Hardware) 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

State v. Narval Hardware, 868 So. 2d 574, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1312, 2004 WL 305954 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

FLETCHER, Judge.

The state seeks certiorari review of two trial court orders setting a Frye¹ evi-dentiary hearing to assist the trial court in determining the admissibility into evidence of polygraph (“lie detector”) test results. We quash the two trial court orders.

In Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572, 573-74 (Fla.1988) the supreme court stated:

“The courts of this state have repeatedly held that the factors contributing to the results of a polygraph test — the skill of the operator, the emotional state of the person tested, the fallibility of the machine, and the lack of a specific quanti-tive relationship between physiological and emotional states — are such that the polygraph cannot be recognized as a sufficiently reliable or valid instrument to warrant its use in judicial proceedings unless both sides agree to its use.”

The Fourth District Court of Appeal was presented in State v. Santiago, 679 So.2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) with a trial court ruling that polygraph results favorable to the defendant would be admitted into evidence at trial. The Fourth District Court stated, at 862:

“We grant the state’s petition for certio-rari because our supreme court has held that polygraph tests are inadmissible as a matter of law.”

Although the Fourth District Court certified the question,² the defendant did not attempt to carry the case any further.

Similarly to the Fourth District Court, we grant the state’s petition for certiorari and quash the orders entered below. We also certify the following question:

ARE THE RESULTS OF POLYGRAPH TESTS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW OR ARE POLYGRAPH TESTS SUBJECT TO THE FRYE TEST?

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

FLETCHER, Judge.

The state seeks certiorari review of two trial court orders setting a Frye¹ evi-dentiary hearing to assist the trial court in determining the admissibility into evidence of polygraph (“lie detector”) test results. We quash the two trial court orders.

In Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572, 573-74 (Fla.1988) the supreme court stated:

“The courts of this state have repeatedly held that the factors contributing to the results of a polygraph test — the skill of the operator, the emotional state of the person tested, the fallibility of the machine, and the lack of a specific quanti-tive relationship between physiological and emotional states — are such that the polygraph cannot be recognized as a sufficiently reliable or valid instrument to warrant its use in judicial proceedings unless both sides agree to its use.”

The Fourth District Court of Appeal was presented in State v. Santiago, 679 So.2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) with a trial court ruling that polygraph results favorable to the defendant would be admitted into evidence at trial. The Fourth District Court stated, at 862:

“We grant the state’s petition for certio-rari because our supreme court has held that polygraph tests are inadmissible as a matter of law.”

Although the Fourth District Court certified the question,² the defendant did not attempt to carry the case any further.

Similarly to the Fourth District Court, we grant the state’s petition for certiorari and quash the orders entered below. We also certify the following question:

ARE THE RESULTS OF POLYGRAPH TESTS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW OR ARE POLYGRAPH TESTS SUBJECT TO THE FRYE TEST?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

868 So. 2d 574, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1312, 2004 WL 305954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-narval-hardware-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack