polygraph test in Oklahoma

1977In Fulton v. State, Okl.Cr., 541 P.2d 871 (1975), this Court re-examined its position on the use of the results of a polygraph examination and held: “. . .in light of the potential unreliability of polygraph examinations at this time, we feel that in all future cases the introduction into evidence of polygraph examination results for any purpose, even if admitted upon stipulation of all parties, will be error. . . . ” (Emphasis added, citations omitted) In the instant case the results of the test were never admitted, nor were there any results, since the test was not administered.

1977In Fulton v. State, Okl.Cr., 541 P.2d 871 , this Court recently held that introduction into evidence of a polygraph examination for any purpose, even if admitted upon stipulation of all parties, is error.

2025Specifically, he argues the instruction is warranted under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as due to the circumstances of his case: that the defense presented evidence that Appellant passed a polygraph test showing no deception in his denial that he killed Toombs; and that the jury's deliberations during the guilt phase of trial were lengthy. 2007 OK CR 29 ¶81 In Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978), the Court held as follows regarding the jury's consideration of mitigation evidence in capital cases: "[W]e conclude that the Eighth and Fourtee

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

2009Schulte v. Hallco Environmental, Inc., 1994 OK 138, ¶ 2 , 886 P.2d 994 . [16] Paxton v. State, 1993 OK CR 59, ¶ 42 , 867 P.2d 1309 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 886 , 115 S.Ct. 227 , 130 L.Ed.2d 153 (1994) [recently reaffirming that, at least in the criminal context, polygraph test results are not admissible for any purpose]; State v. Cook, 1978 OK CR 15, ¶ 2 , 574 P.2d 1073 [Polygraph test results admitted for any purpose is error.]. [17] The Court of Civil Appeals in Hennessee v. Mathis, 1987 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 13 , 737 P.2d 958 , held that introduction of polygraph results through argument of counc

1999Ochoa v. State, 1998 OKCR 41, ¶ 31, 963 P.2d 583, 596 . ¶ 11 We find that Matheson's reference to the polygraph test was a single, isolated response which was not solicited by defense counsel's question.

1999Ochoa v. State, 1998 OKCR 41, ¶ 31, 963 P.2d 583, 596 . ¶ 11 We find that Matheson’s reference to the polygraph test was a single, isolated response which was not solicited by defense counsel’s question.

1994Gilmore directs us to O’Brien v. Papa Gino’s of America, Inc., 780 F.2d 1067 (1st Cir.1986), in which an employee (discharged after he failed a polygraph test about his alleged drug usage) sued for invasion of privacy, claiming he was forced to take the test under the threat of losing his job.

1980We held in McDonald v. State, Okl.Cr., 553 P.2d 171 (1976), that the failure to disclose, information not specifically requested is not error unless it is material evidence within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, supra, and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).

1980We held in McDonald v. State, Okl.Cr., 553 P.2d 171 (1976), that the failure to disclose, information not specifically requested is not error unless it is material evidence within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, supra, and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).

1980We held in McDonald v. State, Okl.Cr., 553 P.2d 171 (1976), that the failure to disclose, information not specifically requested is not error unless it is material evidence within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, supra, and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).

1977But these extensions and later ones have involved a right to liberty, thus the guarantee ordinarily has no application to matters purely of a civil nature. 7 The right to counsel generally has been held inapplicable to civil proceedings even though they may have a critical impact on the destiny of the individual. 8 For example, it has been held there is no right to counsel, at a court-ordered psychiatric hearing, 9 or during a labor union hearing. 10 Denial of counsel during a hearing before a local draft board is not a denial of due process. 11 Due process was not violated by a refusal of cou

1977But these extensions and later ones have involved a right to liberty, thus the guarantee ordinarily has no application to matters purely of a civil nature. 7 The right to counsel generally has been held inapplicable to civil proceedings even though they may have a critical impact on the destiny of the individual. 8 For example, it has been held there is no right to counsel, at a court-ordered psychiatric hearing, 9 or during a labor union hearing. 10 Denial of counsel during a hearing before a local draft board is not a denial of due process. 11 Due process was not violated by a refusal of cou

1977Also see Brown v. Air Pollution Control Board, 37 Ill.2d 450 , 227 N.E.2d 754 , 33 A.L.R.3d 222 (1967) and annotation at p. 229. 14 Recently in some jurisdictions, certain exceptions to the general rule have been carved out where some aspects of the civil litigation are analogous to criminal matters.

1977Also see Brown v. Air Pollution Control Board, 37 Ill.2d 450 , 227 N.E.2d 754 , 33 A.L.R.3d 222 (1967) and annotation at p. 229. 14 Recently in some jurisdictions, certain exceptions to the general rule have been carved out where some aspects of the civil litigation are analogous to criminal matters.

1977Wat Henry Pontiac v. Pitcock, Okl., 301 P.2d 203 (1956). 2 Anderson contends he was prejudiced and reversible error occurred when during trial reference was made to a polygraph test.

1977Wat Henry Pontiac v. Pitcock, Okl., 301 P.2d 203 (1956). [2] Anderson contends he was prejudiced and reversible error occurred when during trial reference was made to a polygraph test.