Opinion ID: 1101231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court erred when it denied the appellant's motion to take a polygraph test, to provide funds therefore and to require the arresting officer to submit to a polygraph test.

Text: ¶ 10. Weatherspoon advances the argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to take a polygraph test at the State's expense and require the arresting officer to take one as well. Once again Weatherspoon cites to Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) in support of his argument that the State must insure that the defendant has a meaningful chance to present his defense which he argues includes providing the funds for a polygraph test. As explained earlier what the State must provide in assisting a defendant in the presentation of his defense is left to the sound discretion of the trial court on a case by case basis. ¶ 11. The State correctly contends that even if Weatherspoon had taken a polygraph test, the results of the test would not have been admissible into evidence. It is well settled that neither the fact of the taking of a polygraph examination or the results of such an examination are admissible into evidence. Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824, 836 (Miss.1995) (Roberts, J.) ( quoting Garrett v. State, 549 So.2d 1325, 1330 (Miss.1989)); see also Miskelley v. State, 480 So.2d 1104, 1108 (Miss.1985); Pennington v. State, 437 So.2d 37, 40 (Miss.1983). It follows that since this type of evidence is inadmissible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Weatherspoon's request to take such a test at the public's expense or to require the arresting officer to take one. Therefore, we find that Weatherspoon was not denied due process by the proper denial of this motion by the lower court.