STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
NARVAL HARDWARE AND JUAN FERREIRO, RESPONDENTS
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 polygraph test results are inadmissible in evidence as a matter of law, not subject to a Frye evidentiary hearing.
The state sought certiorari review of trial court orders setting a Frye evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of polygraph test results. …
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.
[*575] FLETCHER, Judge.
The state seeks certiorari review of two trial court orders setting a Frye1 evidentiary 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 certiorari 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?
. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923).
. The question certified was: “Are the results of polygraph tests inadmissible in evidence as a matter of law?”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Thompkins, 891 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…rder after holding a hearing under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). Not long before that, the third district had certified as a question of great public importance the admissibility of polygraph results in State v. Narval Hardware, 868 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Subsequently, however, our supreme court declined to review the certified question. Hardware v. State, 885 So. 2d 387 (Fla.2004). In Hardware the third district quashed an order of the trial court setting a Frye hearing to deter…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 520 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Santiago, 679 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)