results 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.

2024See Harrell v. State, 725 S.W.2d 208, 209 (Tex. Crim.

1998Nordin further contended the results of the test were not admissible because the State did not lay a proper predicate and show the proper use of a reference sample, citing Harrell v. State, 725 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

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

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).

2016For example, "[njumerous cases have held that where a witness gives a nonresponsive answer that mentions that a polygraph test was offered, or taken, but does not mention the results of such 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). 17 .As is explained below, the present case involves a reference to polygraph examinations in general when no polygraph was performed.

2021App. 1975); Hannon v. State, 475 S.W.2d 800, 802-03 (Tex. Crim.

2004See Richardson v. State , 624 S.W.2d 912, 914-15 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Hannon v. State , 475 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Roper v. State , 375 S.W.2d 454, 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Richardson v. State , 823 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1992, pet’n ref’d); Barker v. State , 740 S.W.2d 579, 583 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet’n).

2006Id. at 20 (holding that the failure to adequately brief an issue results in the waiver of the issue).

2003Id. at 20 (holding that the failure to adequately brief an issue results in the waiver of the issue).

2009Id.

1975Further, in Roper v. State, 375 S.W.2d 454 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), no reversible error occurred where the officer stated unresponsively that the defendant had been subjected to a polygraph test, and the results of the test were not revealed and the jury was instructed to disregard.

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).

2014Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 , 390–91 (Tex. Crim.

2012See Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 , 390–91 (Tex. Crim.

2020First, the court noted that it had previously held that a person’s expectation of privacy had three different stages in the process of drawing and testing blood: “(1) the physical intrusion into his body to draw blood, (2) the exercise of control over and the testing of the blood sample, and (3) obtaining the results of the test.” Id. at 284 (quoting State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516, 526 (Tex. Crim.

2001NOTES [1] The results of this test were not offered at trial. [2] Gannon testified at the suppression hearing that he would not have taken Hailey to the hospital if Simmons had not told him to. [3] Refusal results in an automatic suspension of the person's drivers license. [4] "[I]n the case of blood test results obtained by subpoena," society's interest in "safeguarding the privacy of medical records" is "not sufficiently strong to require protection of blood-alcohol test results from tests taken by hospital personnel solely for medical purposes after a traffic accident." State v. Hardy, 963

2021In Nichols, the prosecutor asked a prosecution witness to tell the jury, without disclosing the results, whether she had submitted to a polygraph.26 The witness stated she took a polygraph. 27 In reversing the conviction, the Court of Criminal Appeals found the question harmful because the question implied the witness passed the polygraph when the results of the test were not admitted.28 Explaining why the evidence was so prejudicial, the Nichols Court stated: “We think 23 See Reed v. State, 522 S.W.2d 466, 468-69 (Tex. Crim.

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).

2023Although the laboratory results may be “highly probative to prove both per se and impairment intoxication,” the evidence must also “include[] either (1) expert testimony of retrograde extrapolation, or (2) other evidence of intoxication that would support an inference that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of driving as well as at the time of taking the test.” Kirsch, 306 S.W.3d at 745–46. 10 Texarkana 2015, no pet.).

2010Kirch v. State , No. PD-0379-09, 2010 Tex. Crim.

2018“The results of a test for alcohol concentration taken within a reasonable period of time after the defendant was driving and showing that he was above the legal limit are probative evidence of intoxication at the time of driving.” Stewart v. State, 129 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. Crim.

2007See id. at 96-97 .

2012See id., at 209-10 ; Kercho v. State, 948 S.W.2d 34, 37 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d).

2012See id ., at 209–10; Kercho v. State , 948 S.W.2d 34, 37 (Tex. App.––Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d).

2007See State v. Laird, 38 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, pet. ref'd) (results of Laird's blood test were inadmissible because his blood was not taken by a "qualified technician").

2007See State v. Laird, 38 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. refd) (results of Laird’s blood test were inadmissible because his blood was not taken by a “qualified technician”).

2006Peoples v. State , 928 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Tex. App.སྭHouston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d); see, e.g., Richardson v. State , 624 S.W.2d 912, 914-15 (Tex. Crim.

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).

2004See Richardson v. State , 624 S.W.2d 912, 914-15 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Hannon v. State , 475 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Roper v. State , 375 S.W.2d 454, 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Richardson v. State , 823 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1992, pet’n ref’d); Barker v. State , 740 S.W.2d 579, 583 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet’n).

1995See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 624 S.W.2d 912, 914-915 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (no error where complainant stated in a nonresponsive answer to prosecutor's question that she had taken a polygraph exam); Hannon v. State, 475 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972) (no error where witness gave nonresponsive answer that indicated he had been put on a lie detector machine); Roper v. State, 375 S.W.2d 454, 457 (Tex.Crim.App. 1964) (no error where officer disclosed that defendant had been given a polygraph exam where answer was nonresponsive and did not reflect the result of the test); Barker v. State, 74

1986Abrego v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 264 , 248 S.W.2d 490 ; Greiner v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 479 , 249 S.W.2d 601 ; and Bryan v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 592 , 252 S.W.2d 184 .

1986Abrego v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 264 , 248 S.W.2d 490 ; Greiner v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 479 , 249 S.W.2d 601 ; and Bryan v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 592 , 252 S.W.2d 184 .

2018Tennard, 802 S.W.2d at 684 ; Bradley v. State, 48 S.W.3d 437, 443 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref'd).

2014Compare Tennard, 802 S.W.2d at 683–84, with Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54 , 59–60 (Tex. Crim.

2014In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); see also Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647, 665 (Tex. Crim.

1968The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 , as requiring disclosure, at least, before the taking of the accused’s evidence is complete.

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.

1987In Nichols, supra, the results of the test were held to have been disclosed, not by an affirmative statement of a witness, but merely by a question revealing that a lie detector exam had been administered.

2011See Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386, 390-91 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (applying standard in Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 572 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) to breath-test results).

2008The results of her analysis and comparisons were routinely reviewed by an experienced shoe-impression analyst at the D.P.S. 8 See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 ; Kelly, 824 S.W.2d at 569 & n.3. 9 Appellant’s counsel, on voir dire examination, had Valdez read passages from the second edition of William J.