Title: Hostzclaw v. State
Citation: 351 So. 2d 970
Docket Number: 50431
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: September 22, 1977

351 So. 2d 970 (1977)
Wesley Anthony HOSTZCLAW, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 50431.

Supreme Court of Florida.
September 22, 1977.
*971 J. Michael Burman of Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney &amp; Searcy, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and Stephen R. Koons, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
KARL, Justice.
This cause is before us on certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal in State v. Hostzclaw, reported at 351 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1976), which conflicts with State v. Cunningham, 324 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1975), thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Petitioner was indicted for the first degree premeditated murder of a Delray Beach police officer. He moved to suppress several statements made by him during and subsequent to the grand jury investigation of the murder.
The trial court granted in part and denied in part the motion to suppress certain designated statements. Respondent appealed, and petitioner cross-appealed this order. The District Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the trial court under review and expressly determined, inter alia, relative to suppression of petitioner's statements to the polygraph operator after the polygraph was concluded, that there is no difference between an incriminating statement made to a polygraph operator after completion of a polygraph examination and an incriminating statement made freely and voluntarily to any other officer and that, therefore, the voluntary statements made to the polygraph operator after completion of the polygraph examination should not have been suppressed. The District Court concluded that petitioner's cross-assignments of error were without merit and that the trial court's finding that immunity was not granted is supported by the record.
This Court granted certiorari because of apparent conflict with State v. Cunningham, supra, as to suppression of statements made to the polygraph operator after examination. The only issue warranting discussion involves whether appellee's admissions to the polygraph operator should be suppressed.
In Cunningham, supra, the Third District Court of Appeal held that, although the results of a polygraph may be admitted into evidence upon stipulation between the state and defense counsel, generally polygraph tests and information gleaned therefrom are not admissible in criminal proceedings.
Petitioner submits that the same rationale applied to statements made during the tests disallowing admissibility should be applied to statements made immediately thereafter and as a direct result thereof. We do not agree with petitioner but, rather, find that the District Court, in the instant cause, decided the question correctly.
The Second District Court of Appeal, in Johnson v. State, 166 So. 2d 798, 801-802 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1964), opined:
This Court's recent decision in Burch v. State, Fla., 343 So. 2d 831, filed March 10, 1977, supports the state's contention that voluntary post-polygraph statements to the polygraph operator are admissible. Burch, supra, involved a situation where the defendant, upon being told that he failed a polygraph examination (which turned out to be a pretended examination) and that he lied when he denied the killing, confessed in detail to the killing. His confession was held to be admissible by this Court.
We have considered the other points raised by petitioner and find them to be likewise without merit.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is approved; to the extent that Cunningham, supra, is inconsistent herewith, it is overruled; and the writ heretofore issued is discharged.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.