Opinion ID: 1706557
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Questions as to Lie Detector Tests

Text: Two bills were reserved, when the trial court permitted testimony as to whether lie detector tests had been given to a witness. The trial court felt that the questions were proper, because no further questions were asked as to the result of the tests. Although there is no Louisiana decision in point, the universal rule in American jurisdictions is that (at least in the absence of stipulation) the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible when offered by either party, either as substantive evidence or as relating to the credibility of a party or a witness. The essential reason is the lack of probative value and insufficient scientific reliability, as well as the possible unduly prejudicial effect upon lay triers of fact. See: McCormick on Evidence, Section 207 (2d ed. 1972); Annotation, Physiological and psychological truth and deception tests, 23 A.L.R.2d 1306 (1952) and later cases supplementing it; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 645(2); 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 588(4); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence, Section 831; and the numerous decisions from many jurisdictions cited in these sources. See also Skolnick, Scientific Theory and Scientific Evidence: An Analysis of Lie-Detection, 70 Yale L.J. 694, 724-28 (1961). Cf., Roux v. New Orleans Police Department, 223 So.2d 905, 911 (La.App.4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 254 La. 815, 227 So.2d 148 (1969). Moreover, because of the reasons for which the test itself is inadmissible, these same authorities summarize the uniform holdings to be that likewise inadmissible is the willingness or unwillingness of a witness or a party to submit to such examination, as is evidence that the test was administered. Such evidence is excluded as an attempt by indirection to evade the direct prohibition against lie-detection testimony for jury consideration, based upon the incompetency and unduly prejudicial effect of such testimony in judicial proceedings. See also Annotation, Propriety and prejudicial effect of comment or evidence as to accused's willingness to take lie detector test, 95 A.L.R.2d 819 (1964) and later cases supplementing it. However, as there noted, if such evidence of this latter type is admitted, it may not necessarily be reversible error, depending upon whether the party was prejudiced by it. The circumstances under which the issue arose in the present case are as follows: The state called Miller as its witness. He had been charged along with the defendant Refuge with the murder and armed robbery in question. Miller had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and had been sentenced therefor. See Footnote 1 above. The defendant's confession had stated he and Miller participated in the armed robbery, but that Miller had gone into the store and done the shooting. Miller's confession admitted that he and Refuge had participated in the armed robbery, but stated that Refuge had done the actual shooting. On the stand, for the first time, Miller denied that Refuge was present at the scene and had done the shooting. Miller stated he was standing outside the store and heard a shot fired by a person unknown to him. The state pleaded surprise, and proceeded to establish that he had made a prior contradictory statement. [2] Miller was subsequently asked by the state (after much examination as to the alleged reasons for the discrepancy in the statement), Tr. 479-80: Q. Do you recall at that time that a test was made on you? A. Yeah, you gave me a test. Q. What kind of test was given to you? A. Lie Detector test. Q. Who gave this test to you? Do you remember? BY [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I object to anything about a lie detector test, your honor. These things are not admissible in court. BY [THE STATE]: I have this man under cross-examination. His veracity is at stake and I intend to call witnesses. BY THE COURT: The results of a polygraph test are not admissible in evidence. BY [THE STATE]: I'm not asking the results. BY [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: What about the inference though? How can you stop the inference when you're talking about polygraphs. BY THE COURT: Objection overruled. Let's proceed a little further. BY [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: In an excess of caution, we reserve a bill, making the question, the testimony, the objection and the court's ruling part of the bill. No further reference was made in Miller's testimony to the polygraph test, although subsequently a police officer was permitted to testify that Miller had taken the test (Bill of Exception No. 28), but not as to the results of it.