ROBERT E. CHAVEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a failure to object to the admissibility of polygraph test results at trial constitutes a waiver of any claim regarding their inadmissibility or a Miranda violation.
Appellant, convicted of armed robbery, stipulated to the admissibility of polygraph results, which were adverse and admitted at trial without objectio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Right Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NEU v. Grant, 548 F.2d 281 (10th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Hubbard, 603 F.2d 137 (10th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Cooper, 812 F.2d 1283 (10th Cir. 1987)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Emeary Moreland, Jr. v. United States, 270 F.2d 887 (10th Cir. 1959)