lie detector test in Louisiana

23 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Refugegreen la · 1972 · cited in 7 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1973–2005 2 sentences 2005In an early case decided by the supreme court, State v. Refuge, 270 So.2d 842 (La. 1972) (also cited by the Defendant), the trial court allowed testimony as to whether a lie detector test had been given to a witness. 1979In State v. Refuge, 270 So.2d 842, 844 (La. 1974), for example, this Court noted: "[T]he universal rule in American jurisdictions is that . . . 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.	2	7
State v. Davisgreen la · 1981 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1988–1998 2 sentences 1998State v. Davis, 407 So.2d 702, 706 (La.1981); State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126, 132 (La.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983). 1988State v. Davis, 407 So.2d 702, 706 (La.1981); State v. Refuge, 270 So.2d 842, 846 (La.1972).	2	2
State v. Lockhartgreen lactapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See State v. Lockhart , 629 So.2d 1195 (La.	1	1
State v. Tonubbeegreen la · 1982 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998State v. Davis, 407 So.2d 702, 706 (La.1981); State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126, 132 (La.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983).	1	1
McLean v. Huntergreen la · 1986 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 1 sentence 1993See McLean, supra .	1	1
State v. Westgreen la · 1982 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 1 sentence 1983See State v. West, supra. Detective Venezia testified that following the lie detector test, the defendant was returned to the cubicle while Venezia awaited the results.	1	1
Rougeau v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Companygreen lactapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980In the case of Rougeau v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 274 So.2d 454, 457 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1973), the court said: "Defendant reasonably conducted an investigation into the suspected wrongdoings of its employees, which it had a right to do.	1	1
State v. Bowengreen ariz · 1969 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (31)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Davis green la · 1977 2 sentences 2022In State v. Davis, 351 So. 2d 771 (La. 1977), the supreme court held that defense counsel did not open the door for further questions by the state on redirect regarding the witness’s lie detector test where the witness mentioned that she had been taken to have a lie detector test. 1990State v. Davis, 351 So.2d 771 (La.1977); State v. Catanese, 368 So.2d 975 (La.1979).	4	1977–2022
State v. Governor green la · 1976 2 sentences 1979The 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 also, State v. Whitmore, 353 So.2d 1286 (La.1978); State v. Davis, 351 So.2d 771 (La.1977); State v. Schouest, 351 So.2d 462 (La.1977); State v. Weeks, 345 So.2d 26 (La.1977); State v. Governor, 331 So.2d 443 (La.1976); State v. Corbin, 285 So.2d 234 (La.1973). 1978State v. Governor, 331 So.2d 443 (La.1976).	4	1977–1979
State v. Corbin green la · 1973 2 sentences 1979The 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 also, State v. Whitmore, 353 So.2d 1286 (La.1978); State v. Davis, 351 So.2d 771 (La.1977); State v. Schouest, 351 So.2d 462 (La.1977); State v. Weeks, 345 So.2d 26 (La.1977); State v. Governor, 331 So.2d 443 (La.1976); State v. Corbin, 285 So.2d 234 (La.1973). 1977Nevertheless, we ultimately conclude that the error is not so prejudicial as to be reversible, upon examination of the entire record and in the context in which the error occurred." See also, State v. Governor, supra; State v. Corbin, supra, McCormick on Evidence, supra, Annotation, Physiological or Psychological Truth and Deception Tests, 23 A.L.R.2d 1306 (1952) and later cases supplementing it; 22A C.J.S.	3	1977–1979
State v. Catanese green la · 1979 2 sentences 1990State v. Davis, 351 So.2d 771 (La.1977); State v. Catanese, 368 So.2d 975 (La.1979). 1981State v. Catanese, 368 So.2d 975 , (La.1979).	2	1981–1990
State v. Weatherspoon green la · 2007 1 sentence 2014In State v. Weatherspoon, 06-539 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/12/06) , 948 So.2d 215 , writ denied, 07-462 (La.10/12/07), 965 So.2d 398 , the defendant asserted that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when a State witness testified he took a lie detector test that showed he was not lying when he said he did not shoot a gun during the incident.	1	2014–2014
State v. Weatherspoon green lactapp · 2006 1 sentence 2014In State v. Weatherspoon, 06-539 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/12/06) , 948 So.2d 215 , writ denied, 07-462 (La.10/12/07), 965 So.2d 398 , the defendant asserted that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when a State witness testified he took a lie detector test that showed he was not lying when he said he did not shoot a gun during the incident.	1	2014–2014
State v. LeBouef green la · 1998 1 sentence 2009In State v. Ernest, 97-335 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/20/98) , 710 So.2d 814 , writ denied, 98-771 (La.7/2/98), 724 So.2d 206 , the court found that a sentence of four years imprisonment at hard labor for cruelty to juveniles was not excessive where the defendant forcibly jammed a bottle into the infant’s mouth, resulting in a cut lip, slammed the infant down on a changing table, and shook the infant, which could have killed him.	1	2009–2009
State v. Ernest neutral lactapp · 1998 1 sentence 2009In State v. Ernest, 97-335 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/20/98) , 710 So.2d 814 , writ denied, 98-771 (La.7/2/98), 724 So.2d 206 , the court found that a sentence of four years imprisonment at hard labor for cruelty to juveniles was not excessive where the defendant forcibly jammed a bottle into the infant’s mouth, resulting in a cut lip, slammed the infant down on a changing table, and shook the infant, which could have killed him.	1	2009–2009
Robertson v. Hanks green scotus · 1998 1 sentence 2005State v. Legrand, 02-1462 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1692 , 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005); State v. Robertson, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/4/98), 712 So.2d 8 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 882 , 119 S.Ct. 190 , 142 L.Ed.2d 155 (1998). [23] This statute provides: An accessory after the fact is any person who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.	1	2005–2005
Robertson v. Louisiana green scotus · 1998 1 sentence 2005State v. Legrand, 02-1462 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1692 , 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005); State v. Robertson, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/4/98), 712 So.2d 8 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 882 , 119 S.Ct. 190 , 142 L.Ed.2d 155 (1998). [23] This statute provides: An accessory after the fact is any person who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.	1	2005–2005
Brown v. United States green scotus · 2005 1 sentence 2005State v. Legrand, 02-1462 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1692 , 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005); State v. Robertson, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/4/98), 712 So.2d 8 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 882 , 119 S.Ct. 190 , 142 L.Ed.2d 155 (1998). [23] This statute provides: An accessory after the fact is any person who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.	1	2005–2005
State v. Davis green lactapp · 2003 1 sentence 2005(Citations omitted.) See also State v. Davis, 03-488 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/12/03), 861 So.2d 638 , writ denied, 03-3401 (La.4/2/04), 869 So.2d 874 ; State v. Gillet, 99-2474 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/10/00), 763 So.2d 725 . [22] Further, the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible in Louisiana when offered by either party, either as substantive evidence or as relating to the credibility of a party or witness.	1	2005–2005
State v. Robertson green la · 1998 1 sentence 2005State v. Legrand, 02-1462 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1692 , 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005); State v. Robertson, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/4/98), 712 So.2d 8 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 882 , 119 S.Ct. 190 , 142 L.Ed.2d 155 (1998). [23] This statute provides: An accessory after the fact is any person who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.	1	2005–2005
State v. Chisley green la · 2004 1 sentence 2005(Citations omitted.) See also State v. Davis, 03-488 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/12/03), 861 So.2d 638 , writ denied, 03-3401 (La.4/2/04), 869 So.2d 874 ; State v. Gillet, 99-2474 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/10/00), 763 So.2d 725 . [22] Further, the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible in Louisiana when offered by either party, either as substantive evidence or as relating to the credibility of a party or witness.	1	2005–2005
State v. Legrand green la · 2004 1 sentence 2005State v. Legrand, 02-1462 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1692 , 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005); State v. Robertson, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/4/98), 712 So.2d 8 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 882 , 119 S.Ct. 190 , 142 L.Ed.2d 155 (1998). [23] This statute provides: An accessory after the fact is any person who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.	1	2005–2005
State v. Gillet green lactapp · 2000 1 sentence 2005(Citations omitted.) See also State v. Davis, 03-488 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/12/03), 861 So.2d 638 , writ denied, 03-3401 (La.4/2/04), 869 So.2d 874 ; State v. Gillet, 99-2474 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/10/00), 763 So.2d 725 . [22] Further, the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible in Louisiana when offered by either party, either as substantive evidence or as relating to the credibility of a party or witness.	1	2005–2005
Cathcart v. Hopkins green · 1922 1 sentence 2005State v. Legrand, 02-1462 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1692 , 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005); State v. Robertson, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/4/98), 712 So.2d 8 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 882 , 119 S.Ct. 190 , 142 L.Ed.2d 155 (1998). [23] This statute provides: An accessory after the fact is any person who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.	1	2005–2005
United States v. Scheffer green scotus · 1998 2 sentences 2002Private employer exemptions to the Polygraph Protection Act include those relating to ongoing investigations, security services, and drug companies. [5] We also disagree with the court of appeal's reliance on United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998), in ruling that the polygraph was inadmissible. 2002Private employer exemptions to the Polygraph Protection Act include those relating to ongoing investigations, security services, and drug companies. [5] We also disagree with the court of appeal's reliance on United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998), in ruling that the polygraph was inadmissible.	1	2002–2002
Tabeling v. United States green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1998State v. Davis, 407 So.2d 702, 706 (La.1981); State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126, 132 (La.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983).	1	1998–1998
Dunne v. Hansen green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1998State v. Davis, 407 So.2d 702, 706 (La.1981); State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126, 132 (La.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983).	1	1998–1998
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tribble green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1998State v. Davis, 407 So.2d 702, 706 (La.1981); State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126, 132 (La.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983).	1	1998–1998
State v. Whitmore green la · 1977	1	1979–1979
State v. Weeks green la · 1977 1 sentence 1979The 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 also, State v. Whitmore, 353 So.2d 1286 (La.1978); State v. Davis, 351 So.2d 771 (La.1977); State v. Schouest, 351 So.2d 462 (La.1977); State v. Weeks, 345 So.2d 26 (La.1977); State v. Governor, 331 So.2d 443 (La.1976); State v. Corbin, 285 So.2d 234 (La.1973).	1	1979–1979
State v. Schouest green la · 1977	1	1979–1979
State v. Porter neutral la · 1973 1 sentence 1979In State v. Clark, 284 So.2d 781 (La.1973), supervisory writs were denied on similar facts with the notation that the defense contention could be reviewed on appeal in case of conviction. [2] Dissenting to the denial, Justice Barham argued that the state should be compelled to carry out its *1023 end of the bargain once the defendant proved he had passed the test.	1	1979–1979
Stone v. Earp green mich · 1951	1	1973–1973
The PEOPLE v. Prochut green ill · 1963	1	1973–1973
People v. Zazzetta green ill · 1963	1	1973–1973
People v. Parrella green calctapp · 1958	1	1972–1972
Kaminski v. State green fla · 1953	1	1972–1972
Johnson v. State green fladistctapp · 1964	1	1972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:64 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:10 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:27 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 63 (1950–2025) IL 55 (1948–2026) GA 50 (1975–2016) TX 43 (1952–2023) MD 39 (1958–2025) PA 37 (1970–2021) FL 31 (1953–2010) NY 29 (1961–2025) LA 23 (1972–2022) OH 21 (1960–2024) MI 20 (1949–2025) NJ 19 (1961–2007) MS 18 (1955–2018) IN 16 (1974–2023) KS 14 (1959–2014) MA 12 (1973–2026) CO 12 (1959–2015) MN 11 (1952–2017) MO 11 (1960–2016) TN 10 (1958–2000) DC 9 (1978–2016) WA 9 (1979–2026) AZ 9 (1962–2016) NM 9 (1961–2018) ME 9 (1962–2009) AR 9 (1977–2010) UT 8 (1991–2026) IA 8 (1960–2009) KY 7 (1957–2016) SD 7 (1973–2014) OK 7 (1951–2009) HI 6 (1962–2019) AL 6 (1972–2002) VA 6 (1965–2010) SC 6 (1959–2022) NE 5 (1949–2018) DE 5 (1981–2023) NC 4 (1975–2009) ND 4 (1950–1998) WY 4 (1986–2020) OR 4 (1981–2020) WI 3 (1964–1974) ID 3 (1982–1991) AK 3 (1979–1996) RI 3 (1971–1994) MT 2 (1964–1978) NH 2 (1965–1993)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check