Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bibeegreen2 sentences1982In State v. Bibee, 496 S.W.2d 305, 316 [21][22] (Mo.App.1973) the defendant contended he was entitled to show that he had offered to take a lie detector test because this would show his sincere feeling about his denial that he had committed the crime. 1977In State v. Bibee, 496 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.App.1973) this court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting evidence offered by the defendant to prove that prior to the trial he was willing to undergo a lie detector test concerning his guilt or innocence. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kenleygreen1 sentence1999Rule 29.15(k); State v. Kenley, 952 S.W.2d 250, 266 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 892 , 139 L.Ed.2d 878 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Personnel Board of Kansas Citygreen1 sentence1990Cf. Campbell v. Personnel Board of Kansas City, 666 S.W.2d 806, 810-11 (Mo. App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biddlegreen1 sentence1990In State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d 182, 185 [1] (Mo. banc 1980), our supreme court held that the results of lie detector tests are inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial “because they lack sufficient support for their reliability.” The court also said: “Likewise, inadmissible in evidence are an accused’s offer or professed willingness to submit to a polygraph examination, ... and testimony or prosecutorial comment to the effect that the accused was unwilling to undergo a polygraph examination.” In the case at bar, Continental’s counsel, in his opening statement, said: “The question of puniti | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stidhamgreen1 sentence1977State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806, 811 [17] (Mo.1962); State v. Stidham, 305 S.W.2d 7, 18 [20] (Mo.1957); State v. Cole, 354 Mo. 181 , 188 S.W.2d 43 [13] (1945). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Changgreen2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Parrellagreen2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mottramgreen2 sentences1977The state argues, however, that the statements attributed to the defendant by Ingram are admissible because they “show more than the defendant’s mere unwillingness to take the test, i. e., that his refusal or unwillingness was grounded on his belief that the machine was trustworthy and that it would therefore expose his deception.” The state relies upon this language in State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A.2d 225, 230 (1962): “Consciousness of guilt could be shown by evidence that a witness refused to take a lie detector test on the ground that he believed the test was trustworthy or dependab 1977The state argues, however, that the statements attributed to the defendant by Ingram are admissible because they “show more than the defendant’s mere unwillingness to take the test, i. e., that his refusal or unwillingness was grounded on his belief that the machine was trustworthy and that it would therefore expose his deception.” The state relies upon this language in State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A.2d 225, 230 (1962): “Consciousness of guilt could be shown by evidence that a witness refused to take a lie detector test on the ground that he believed the test was trustworthy or dependab | 1 | 1 |
State v. BRITTgreen2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weindorfgreen1 sentence1977State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806, 811 [17] (Mo.1962); State v. Stidham, 305 S.W.2d 7, 18 [20] (Mo.1957); State v. Cole, 354 Mo. 181 , 188 S.W.2d 43 [13] (1945). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Faught
green
2 sentences1978State v. Faught, 546 S.W.2d 515 [1] (Mo.App. 1977). 1977State v. Fields, 434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo.1968); State v. Faught, 546 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App.1977) and cases cited therein. | 2 | 1977–1978 |
State v. Fields
green
2 sentences1977“A. His statement that he made to me was that Detective Lindsey had come out there to talk to him about to take a polygraph test about Butch’s disappearance and he said, ‘You know that I cannot do that,’ and he was upset and nervous, and he said, ‘Can they make me take a polygraph test?’ ” In Missouri, in the absence of a stipulation between the state and the defendant, State v. Fields, 434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo.1968), results of a lie detector test are not admissible in evidence. 1977State v. Fields, 434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo.1968); State v. Faught, 546 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App.1977) and cases cited therein. | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Blackburn v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1964He cites certain federal cases, such as Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 ; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 , 80 S.Ct. 274 , 4 L.Ed.2d 242 ; Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433 , 81 S.Ct. 1541 , 6 L.Ed.2d 948 ; and Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , holding generally that the admission of an involuntary confession is a fundamental error depriving a defendant of due process. 1964He cites certain federal cases, such as Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 ; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 , 80 S.Ct. 274 , 4 L.Ed.2d 242 ; Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433 , 81 S.Ct. 1541 , 6 L.Ed.2d 948 ; and Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , holding generally that the admission of an involuntary confession is a fundamental error depriving a defendant of due process. | 2 | 1960–1964 |
State Ex Rel. Kemper v. Vincent
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 49-50 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wellington v. Brodeur
green
1 sentence1999Rule 29.15(k); State v. Kenley, 952 S.W.2d 250, 266 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 892 , 139 L.Ed.2d 878 (1998). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Triestman v. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility
green
1 sentence1999Rule 29.15(k); State v. Kenley, 952 S.W.2d 250, 266 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 892 , 139 L.Ed.2d 878 (1998). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Hoopes
green
1 sentence1997Even if there had been a plea agreement, and the State breached it after obtaining a second confession, and Hall did pass a lie detector test, HalTs only relief would be the exclusion of the second confession. 3 Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Solem v. Stumes
green
2 sentences1992Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 640 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1340 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984). 1992Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 640 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1340 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Driver
green
2 sentences1977State v. Green, 254 Iowa 1379 , 121 N.W.2d 89 (1963); State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. 152 , 515 P.2d 769 (1973); State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962). 1977State v. Green, 254 Iowa 1379 , 121 N.W.2d 89 (1963); State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. 152 , 515 P.2d 769 (1973); State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Commonwealth v. Williams
green
2 sentences1977In Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973) a witness for the state referred to defendant’s refusal to take a lie detector test. 1977In Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973) a witness for the state referred to defendant’s refusal to take a lie detector test. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Emory
green
2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Cole
green
2 sentences1977State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806, 811 [17] (Mo.1962); State v. Stidham, 305 S.W.2d 7, 18 [20] (Mo.1957); State v. Cole, 354 Mo. 181 , 188 S.W.2d 43 [13] (1945). 1977State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806, 811 [17] (Mo.1962); State v. Stidham, 305 S.W.2d 7, 18 [20] (Mo.1957); State v. Cole, 354 Mo. 181 , 188 S.W.2d 43 [13] (1945). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Bowen v. Eyman
green
1 sentence1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Kolander
green
2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1977State v. Green, 254 Iowa 1379 , 121 N.W.2d 89 (1963); State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. 152 , 515 P.2d 769 (1973); State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962). 1977State v. Green, 254 Iowa 1379 , 121 N.W.2d 89 (1963); State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. 152 , 515 P.2d 769 (1973); State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Mills v. People
green
2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Hegel
green
2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Carter
green
2 sentences1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). 1977Bowen v. Eyman, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.Ariz.1970); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); People v. Parrella, 158 Cal.App.2d 140 , 322 P.2d 83, 87 (1958); Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397 , 339 P.2d 998 (1959); State v. Chang, 46 Haw. 22 , 374 P.2d 5, 12 (1962); State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Hegel, 9 Ohio App.2d 12 , 222 N.E.2d 666 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 224 Pa.Super. 298 , 307 A.2d 289 (1973); State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395 , 111 S.E.2d 669, 682 (1959). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Stafford
green
2 sentences1977State v. Green, 254 Iowa 1379 , 121 N.W.2d 89 (1963); State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. 152 , 515 P.2d 769 (1973); State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962). 1977State v. Green, 254 Iowa 1379 , 121 N.W.2d 89 (1963); State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. 152 , 515 P.2d 769 (1973); State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Meyer v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1977In Hegel , the court, in holding that defendant’s refusal to take a lie detector test should not have been revealed to the jury, referred to “the manifest weight of the type of testimony erroneously admitted.” In one case, Meyer v. Commonwealth, 472 S.W.2d 479 (Ky.App.1971), the court held improper the admission of evidence of the defendant’s refusal to take a lie detector test but also held that there was other evidence of defendant’s guilt, including his own confession, which was so “overwhelming and conclusive” that reference to his refusal was harmless. 1977In Hegel , the court, in holding that defendant’s refusal to take a lie detector test should not have been revealed to the jury, referred to “the manifest weight of the type of testimony erroneously admitted.” In one case, Meyer v. Commonwealth, 472 S.W.2d 479 (Ky.App.1971), the court held improper the admission of evidence of the defendant’s refusal to take a lie detector test but also held that there was other evidence of defendant’s guilt, including his own confession, which was so “overwhelming and conclusive” that reference to his refusal was harmless. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Brown v. Mississippi green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Reck v. Pate green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Townsend v. Sain red | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.