polygraph test in Texas

2014“When the results are not revealed, there is generally no error in failing to grant a mistrial when the trial court sustains the adverse party’s objection and instructs the jury to disregard the answer.” Id. (citing Richardson v. State, 624 S.W.2d 912 , 914– 15 (Tex. Crim.

2003This Court has held that, "where a witness gives an unresponsive answer which mentions a polygraph test but does not mention the results of such test, there is no error in failing to grant a mistrial where the objection is sustained and the jury instructed to disregard." Richardson v. State , 624 S.W.2d 912, 914-15 (Tex. Crim.

2015“Numerous cases have held that where a witness gives a nonresponsive answer that mentions a polygraph test was offered or taken, but does not mention the results of such a test, there is no error in failing to grant a mistrial.” Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (quoting Kugler v. State, 902 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d).

2015"Numerous cases have held that where a witness gives a nonresponsive answer that mentions a polygraph test was offered or taken, but does not mention the results of such a test, there is no error in failing to grant a mistrial." Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 251 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (quoting Kugler v. State, 902 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. refd).

2012While we did state in a footnote that "neither the results of a polygraph test nor the 'fact' of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding," the issue in Nesbit was the timing of the filing of the motion to revoke, not the use of polygraph results. 227 S.W.3d at 66 n.4 (citing Nethery , 692 S.W.2d at 700 ).

2012While we did state in a footnote that “neither the results of a polygraph test nor the ‘fact’ of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding,” the issue in Nesbit was the timing of the filing of the motion to revoke, not the use of polygraph results. 227 S.W.3d at 66 n.4 (citing Nethery, 692 S.W.2d at 700 ).

2025See Kugler v. State, 902 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d) (reversing and remanding for a new trial where detective testified at trial that appellant had been offered a polygraph but refused to submit to one, finding that the testimony was “unduly persuasive and cannot be cured by an instruction to disregard”); Frueboes v. State, No. 06-03-00061-CR, 2004 WL 625682 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Texarkana Mar. 31, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (recognizing that “if a witness testifies that a defendant refused to take a polygraph test and that test

2024“Numerous cases have held that where a witness gives a nonresponsive answer that mentions a polygraph test was offered or taken but does not mention the results of such a test, there is no error in failing to grant a mistrial.” Kugler v. State, 902 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d).

2019“It has long been the rule in this state that references to a polygraph test, or to its results, are inadmissible for all purposes.” Martinez v. State, 272 S.W.3d 615, 626 (Tex. Crim.

2019As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. (1) The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Overruling the Suppression Motion It is undisputed that Battiest volunteered to come to the Paris Police Department to take a polygraph examination administered by Bryan Luley, a Senior Special Agent for the United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, and that Luley engaged in a noncustodial interview. 2 It is also undisputed that Battiest was informed of his constitutional and statutory rights 1 Battiest pled true to the State’s enhancement allegation. 2 Due to th

2017Martines, 371 S.W.3d at 251 ; Barker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 579, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.).

2011We have previously noted that “[n]umerous cases have held that where a witness gives a nonresponsive answer that mentions a polygraph test was offered or taken, but does not mention the results of such a test, there is no error in failing to grant a mistrial.” Kugler v. State, 902 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd); Barker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 579, 582-83 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (finding no error when witness mentioned that officers had asked defendant if he wanted to take a polygraph); see also Garcia v. State, 907 S.W.2d 635, 639 (Tex.App.-Co

2009To which Officer Maxey replied, “Plus I gave him a polygraph test, which confirmed his story, which he passed.” Id. (em phasis in original).

2009Nesbit v. State, 227 S.W.3d 64 , 66 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (“Neither the results of a polygraph test nor the ‘fact’ of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding.”); Tennard, 802 S.W.2d at 683 (“The existence and results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible for all purposes.”); Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (“It has long-been the rule in this State that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible for all purposes.”)-, Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 59 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (“It has been the consistent holding of this Court

2016See Mayhugh et al p. 40 id.

2014The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, nevertheless, held that because the trial court ordered Leonard to both do things within his power to do, such as attend the program and participate fully, but also things not within his power to do, such as pass a polygraph test, that the appellate court should have determined whether Strain abused his discretion in 13 Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570 , 576–77 (Tex. Crim.

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much reli

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other -6- grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much reli

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other -6- grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much

2010See Hou-Tex, 26 S.W.3d at 109 ; see also Keith v. Stoelting, Inc., 915 F.2d 996, 999 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (interpreting Texas law and holding, in a case where a state employee sued the polygraph manufacturer after he failed a polygraph test and lost his job, that "Texas will not extend horizontal privity to economic loss cases. . . .").

2010See Hou-Tex , 26 S.W.3d at 109 ; see also Keith v. Stoelting, Inc. , 915 F.2d 996, 999 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (interpreting Texas law and holding, in a case where a state employee sued the polygraph manufacturer after he failed a polygraph test and lost his job, that "Texas will not extend horizontal privity to economic loss cases. . . .").

2013“Neither the results of a polygraph test nor the ‘fact’ of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding.” Nesbit v. State, 227 S.W.3d 64 , 66 n.4 (Tex. Crim.

2012While we did state in a footnote that "neither the results of a polygraph test nor the 'fact' of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding," the issue in Nesbit was the timing of the filing of the motion to revoke, not the use of polygraph results. 227 S.W.3d at 66 n.4 (citing Nethery , 692 S.W.2d at 700 ).

2015However, “Tennard stands for the proposition that when a polygraph is actually administered, the existence of the polygraph test and results thereof are inadmissible for all purposes.” Garcia v. State, 907 S.W.2d 635, 638 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995), 11 16 aff’d, 981 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim.

2015However, “Tennard stands for the proposition that 15 when a polygraph is actually administered, the existence of the polygraph test and results thereof are inadmissible for all purposes.” Garcia v. State, 907 S.W.2d 635, 638 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995), aff’d, 981 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim.

2012App. 2007) (claiming in dicta, "Neither the results of a polygraph test nor the fact of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding."). 15. 15 See Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.

2012App. 2007) (claiming in dicta, “Neither the results of a polygraph test nor the fact of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding.”). 15 See Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.

2010See Hou-Tex, 26 S.W.3d at 109 ; see also Keith v. Stoelting, Inc., 915 F.2d 996, 999 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (interpreting Texas law and holding, in a case where a state employee sued the polygraph manufacturer after he failed a polygraph test and lost his job, that "Texas will not extend horizontal privity to economic loss cases. . . .").

2010See Hou-Tex , 26 S.W.3d at 109 ; see also Keith v. Stoelting, Inc. , 915 F.2d 996, 999 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (interpreting Texas law and holding, in a case where a state employee sued the polygraph manufacturer after he failed a polygraph test and lost his job, that "Texas will not extend horizontal privity to economic loss cases. . . .").

2009In re Shaw, 117 S.W.3d 520, 525 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2003, pet. denied) (holding that speculation as to injuries that could result from a refusal to comply with an order to submit to a polygraph test which are merely contingent and have not yet accrued are not ripe).

2004In re Shaw, 117 S.W.3d 520, 525 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2003, pet. denied) (holding that speculation as to injuries that could result from a refusal to comply with an order to submit to a polygraph test which are merely contingent and have not yet accrued are not ripe).

2013In Roper v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court‟s instruction to disregard was effective and no reversible error resulted from an officer‟s nonresponsive answer that “„[w]e carried him and run a polygraph test.‟” 375 S.W.2d 454, 456-57 (Tex. Crim.

2009The court of crim inal appeals stated, “In light of the prom pt ruling of the court and the instruction to the jury to disregard the testim ony, no reversible error is shown.” Id. 7 In Renesto v. State, the defendant com plained the trial court erred in failing to grant a m istrial when a State’s witness, Carey Dulaney, stated he had taken a polygraph test. 452 S.W .2d 498, 500 (Tex. Crim .

2015See Reed v. State, 522 S.W.2d 466, 468-69 (Tex. Crim.

1981In the recent case of Marini v. State, 593 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), as well as the cases of Reed v. State, 522 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and Roper v. State, 375 S.W.2d 454 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), it was held that where a witness gives an unresponsive answer which mentions a polygraph test but does not mention the *915-919 results of such test, there is no error in failing to grant a mistrial where the objection has been sustained and the jury instructed to disregard.

2014Compare Tennard, 802 S.W.2d at 683-84, with Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 59-60 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) and Nichols, 378 S.W.2d at 336-37 . 10 Furthermore, the State argues that Applicant “did not, and could not, establish that the result would have been different in the present case because other individuals” saw Applicant, Aaron identified Applicant as the man who murdered his father, and Janie and Mitchell were not the sole witnesses at trial to prove Applicant’s guilt nor were they crucial witnesses.

2009Nesbit v. State, 227 S.W.3d 64 , 66 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (“Neither the results of a polygraph test nor the ‘fact’ of failing a polygraph test are admissible in a Texas criminal proceeding.”); Tennard, 802 S.W.2d at 683 (“The existence and results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible for all purposes.”); Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (“It has long-been the rule in this State that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible for all purposes.”)-, Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 59 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (“It has been the consistent holding of this Court

2025Martinez, 2018 WL 2328242 , at *2 (citing Ex Parte Huddlestun, 505 S.W.3d 646, 664 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (concluding that evidence regarding officer’s failure to request a polygraph examination from defendant was inadmissible as it would have caused the jury to speculate about the results of a “nonperform[ed] polygraph examination”); see also White v. State, No. 03-17-00504-CR, 2019 WL 2518755 , at *3–10 (Tex. App.—Austin June 19, 2019, no pet.) (evidence of a defendant’s willingness to take a 29 polygraph examination is inadmissible as it may cause the factfinder to “speculat

2019“Regardless of whether the case involves the results of a polygraph test or a defendant’s willingness to take a polygraph test, evidence of either will result in the same problem: the fact finder will speculate about its outcome or a witness or defendant’s position will 11 be bolstered.” Ex parte Huddlestun, 505 S.W.3d 646, 664 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d).

2015In Carmona v. State, 947 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.) the defense hired a polygraph examiner, who conducted both a pretest interview and a polygraph test on the defendant.

2015She did In Carmona v. State, 947 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.App.–Austin everything but stand up in open court and disrupt the court 1997, no pet.) the defense hired a polygraph examiner, who proceedings in an attempt to preserve her attorney-client conducted both a pretest interview and a polygraph test on privilege. the defendant.

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much reli

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other -6- grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much reli

2014Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 250 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Russell v. State, 798 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.); see Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206, 210-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), overruled on other -6- grounds by Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(noting that polygraph evidence has generally been excluded due to potential sources of error in the test itself, including the competency of the examiner, the tendency of the jury to place too much

2014App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Peoples v. State, 928 S.W.2d 112 , 115–16 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d)). 5 Here, White’s answer 6 did not reflect whether Murray took or refused a polygraph test.

2006Peoples v. State, 928 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); see, e.g., Richardson v. State, 624 S.W.2d 912, 914-15 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Reed v. State, 522 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Tex.Crim.App.1975).

2000In Lucas v. State, 479 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), the Court of Criminal Ap peals recognized the predecessor of the quoted rule as allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of the results of a polygraph examination given to the defendant after the defendant, testifying on his own behalf, stated that he had made an agreement with the district attorney that his case would be dismissed if he “passed” the polygraph test.

2000In Lucas v. State, 479 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. Crim.App.1972), the Court of Criminal Appeals *404 recognized the predecessor of the quoted rule as allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of the results of a polygraph examination given to the defendant after the defendant, testifying on his own behalf, stated that he had made an agreement with the district attorney that his case would be dismissed if he "passed" the polygraph test.

2014“When a witness gives a nonresponsive answer[4] that mentions a polygraph test, courts initially inquire into whether the results of the test were revealed.” Id.

2014“When the results are not revealed, there is generally no error in failing to grant a mistrial when the trial court sustains the adverse party’s objection and instructs the jury to disregard the answer.” Id. (citing Richardson v. State, 624 S.W.2d 912 , 914– 15 (Tex. Crim.