![]() It must be remembered that we are not here considering a case where there was a prior agreement that the results of the test might be admitted in evidence. 'We are not ready to say that the lie detector has attained such scientific and psychological accuracy, nor its operators such sureness of interpretation of figures on a dial that the testimony here in question was competent, over objection, for submission to a jury holding the fate of the defendant in its hands. We held the subsequent admission of the results of the polygraph tests under these circumstances was reversible error. In compliance with the court's expressed desire the parties took the tests, but there was no stipulation or agreement that testimony might be admitted concerning the results of such tests. The question in that case arose when the trial court suggested both the defendant and complaining witness submit to lie detector tests. 622, 185 P.2d 147, we discussed the admissibility of polygraph test results in evidence. ![]() He claims he was unaware of the numerous faults inherent in such a testing system. The test results in evidence and no objection was raised.ĭefendant does not deny he stipulated the lie detector test results would be admissible, but maintains it was error to admit them because his request for a polygraph examination was based upon erroneous knowledge as to its accuracy. Upon resumption of trial, the examiner testified in detail as to the operation of the machine, the manner in which the test was given, and the results. The results of the test implicated defendant and, in the opinion of the examiner, they indicated his answers to many of the questions were untruthful. The trial court ordered the polygraph test to be administered. He informed the court that if he was permitted to take the test he would stipulate the results would be admissible in evidence. Defendant explained that the request had not been made sooner because he was not aware a qualified polygraph operator could be obtained without charge. During the course of trial, defendant moved the court in the presence of the jury to order the chief of police to make arrangements for him to take a lie detector test prior to the completion of trial. He denied the charges brought against him and at trial relied principally upon the defense of alibi.ĭefendant's first claim of error relates to the admissibility of the results of a polygraph examination. She notified the police and later positively identified defendant in a lineup conducted at the police station. Defendant quickly overpowered her and placed his knife across her throat, stating, 'That is your last move, don't try anything like that again.' The victim was subsequently taken to some nearby shrubs where she was raped. A struggle ensued and the victim's hand was cut in grabbing the knife. In an attempt to free herself, the victim swung at defendant and knocked the knife from his hand. She delivered the keys to defendant and he then ordered her outside, whereupon he grabbed her by the hair and pushed her down an alley. The intruder, later identified as defendant, was wearing a white cloth over his head and was holding a knife in one hand. a man appeared in the doorway of the living room and demanded that she turn over the keys to her car. After having put the children to bed, she returned to the living room to study. ![]() On the evening of April 25, 1973, the victim herein, a nineteen-year-old girl, was baby-sitting at a home in McPherson, Kansas. Ferguson, of Weelborg, Embers & Ferguson, McPherson, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.ĭefendant Paul Richard Lassley appeals from his conviction by jury of kidnapping (K.S.A. Sizemore, Newton, was with him on the brief for appellant. Burns, of Speir, Stroberg & Sizemore, Newton, argued the cause, and Michael S. 21-3502), the record is examined and it is held: (1) The trial court did not err in admitting in evidence the results of a polygraph examination when it was stipulated by the parties the results would be admissible and when it was shown the examiner was qualified and the test was conducted under proper conditions (2) the trial court erred in failing to vacate the conviction on the charge of aggravated assault as being duplicitous of the crimes of kidnapping and rape and (3) the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury on intent.ĭavid C. In an appeal from a jury conviction of kidnapping (K.S.A. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |