lie detector test in Utah

8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Utah 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 (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Allengreen utah · 2005 · cited in 3 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2015–2020 2 sentences 2020Id. ¶ 46 (quotation simplified). ¶20 And in Allen, our supreme court held that a court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for a mistrial when one of the State’s witnesses made an unsolicited reference to the defendant being asked to “come in for a lie detector test.” 2005 UT 11, ¶ 36 . 2016See also State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶¶ 11, 42-44 , 108 P.3d 730 (affirming the district court’s denial of a mistrial following a witness’s statement that the defendant was asked to take a lie detector test when “the reference was vague” and did not include details such as the defendant’s having taken and failed the test and where the court gave a curative instruction); State v. Cooper, 2011 UT App 412 , ¶ 21 n.11, 275 P.3d 250 (identifying several cases in which curative instructions have successfully been used to remedy errors at trial). ¶24 Nonetheless, Defendant asserts that he was harmed	2	3
State v. Casegreen utah · 1976 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶43 , 108 P.3d 730 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness's improper statement that the defendant had been asked to take a lie detector test was brief, vague, and not intentionally elicited, and because no further reference was made to it); State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57, ¶¶38-39 , 993 P.2d 837 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness's reference to the defendant's "other crimes" was vague and insignificant); State v. Case, 547 P.2d 221, 223 (Utah 1976) (holding that a mistrial was not necessary where a witness twice men 2015See State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 43 , 108 P.3d 730 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s improper statement that the defendant had been asked to take a lie detector test was brief, vague, and not intentionally elicited, and because no further reference was made to it); State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57 , ¶¶ 38–39, 993 P.2d 837 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s reference to the defendant’s ‚other crimes‛ was vague and insignificant); State v. Case, 547 P.2d 221, 223 (Utah 1976) (holding that a mistrial was not necessary where a witness twice m	1	1
Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Center, Inc.green utah · 2003 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 2003 UT 23, ¶ 46 , 70 P.3d 904 (declining to address an inadequately briefed argument). 2005See Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 2003 UT 23, ¶ 46 , 70 P.3d 904 (declining to address an inadequately briefed argument).	1	1
State v. Tillmangreen utah · 1987 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992See Tillman, 750 P.2d at 559 .	1	1
State v. Wrightgreen nj · 1984 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda -type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state's suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence"); State v. Faller, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose"); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr. 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda -type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state's suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence"); State v. Faller, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose"); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr.	1	1
Commonwealth v. Bennettgreen pa · 1970 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda -type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state's suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence"); State v. Faller, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose"); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr. 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda -type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state's suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence"); State v. Faller, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose"); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr.	1	1
Creeks v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda-type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state’s suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence”); State v. Falter, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose”); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr. 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda -type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state's suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence"); State v. Faller, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose"); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr.	1	1
People v. Baileygreen nyappdiv · 1988 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) (“appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights”), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). . 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) ("appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). [11] The state cites testimony to the effect that defendant did not consider himself under arrest even after he was formally arrested, suggesting this demonstrates that defendant could not have believed he was in cu	1	1
People v. Cartergreen calctapp · 1970 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991App.1976) (where investigation has focused on defendant, Miranda warnings required before polygraph); People v. Carter, 7 Cal.App.3d 332 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 546, 549 (1970) ("Questioning during the course of a lie detector test certainly qualifies as a form of custodial interrogation."), overruled on other grounds, 6 Cal.3d 441 , 492 P.2d 1 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 (1972). 1991App.1976) (where investigation has focused on defendant, Miranda warnings required before polygraph); People v. Carter, 7 Cal.App.3d 332 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 546, 549 (1970) ("Questioning during the course of a lie detector test certainly qualifies as a form of custodial interrogation."), overruled on other grounds, 6 Cal.3d 441 , 492 P.2d 1 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 (1972).	1	1
State v. Fallergreen sd · 1975 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda -type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state's suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence"); State v. Faller, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose"); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr. 1991See, e.g., State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 , 477 A.2d 1265, 1269 (1984) (noting that strict Miranda -type analysis is typically applied to polygraph confessions); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34 , 264 A.2d 706, 707 (1970) (state's suggestion that defendant was not in custody for polygraph was "attempt to have [court] submerge [its] intelligence"); State v. Faller, 88 S.D. 685 , 227 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1975) ("situation a lie detector test presents can best be described as a psychological rubber hose"); Creeks v. State, 542 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Cr.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (4)

Case	Negative	Cited
Whalen v. Stategreen del · 1981 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) (“appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights”), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). . 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) ("appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). [11] The state cites testimony to the effect that defendant did not consider himself under arrest even after he was formally arrested, suggesting this demonstrates that defendant could not have believed he was in cu	1	1
Kretchmar v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) (“appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights”), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). . 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) ("appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). [11] The state cites testimony to the effect that defendant did not consider himself under arrest even after he was formally arrested, suggesting this demonstrates that defendant could not have believed he was in cu	1	1
Ribotsky v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) (“appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights”), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). . 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) ("appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). [11] The state cites testimony to the effect that defendant did not consider himself under arrest even after he was formally arrested, suggesting this demonstrates that defendant could not have believed he was in cu	1	1
Piatt v. Lovettgreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) (“appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights”), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). . 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) ("appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). [11] The state cites testimony to the effect that defendant did not consider himself under arrest even after he was formally arrested, suggesting this demonstrates that defendant could not have believed he was in cu	1	1

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Wach green utah · 2001 2 sentences 2010A "trial court should not grant a mistrial except where the cireumstances are such as to reasonably indicate ... that a fair trial cannot be had and that a mistrial is necessary in order to avoid injustice." State v. Wach, 2001 UT 35, ¶ 45 , 24 P.3d 948 (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). {18 In cross-examining Defendant, the prosecutor asked, "Do you recall an officer asking you the question, ['If I had to hook you up to a lie detector test and said have you ever touched your other daughter, refer 1270 ring to [TP.], in an inappropriate way, what would your response be 2010A "trial court should not grant a mistrial except where the cireumstances are such as to reasonably indicate ... that a fair trial cannot be had and that a mistrial is necessary in order to avoid injustice." State v. Wach, 2001 UT 35, ¶ 45 , 24 P.3d 948 (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). {18 In cross-examining Defendant, the prosecutor asked, "Do you recall an officer asking you the question, ['If I had to hook you up to a lie detector test and said have you ever touched your other daughter, refer 1270 ring to [TP.], in an inappropriate way, what would your response be	2	2005–2010
cluster 10840911 green · 1 sentence 2026I begged you to do what? [Mother:] Not to tell on you. 20230210-CA 4 2026 UT App 53 State v. Taylor [Taylor:] Too bad we can’t have a lie detector test in here.	1	2026–2026
State v. Cooper green utahctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2016See also State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶¶ 11, 42-44 , 108 P.3d 730 (affirming the district court’s denial of a mistrial following a witness’s statement that the defendant was asked to take a lie detector test when “the reference was vague” and did not include details such as the defendant’s having taken and failed the test and where the court gave a curative instruction); State v. Cooper, 2011 UT App 412 , ¶ 21 n.11, 275 P.3d 250 (identifying several cases in which curative instructions have successfully been used to remedy errors at trial). ¶24 Nonetheless, Defendant asserts that he was harmed 2016See also State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶¶ 11, 42-44 , 108 P.3d 730 (affirming the district court’s denial of a mistrial following a witness’s statement that the defendant was asked to take a lie detector test when “the reference was vague” and did not include details such as the defendant’s having taken and failed the test and where the court gave a curative instruction); State v. Cooper, 2011 UT App 412 , ¶ 21 n.11, 275 P.3d 250 (identifying several cases in which curative instructions have successfully been used to remedy errors at trial). ¶24 Nonetheless, Defendant asserts that he was harmed	1	2016–2016
State v. Martinez green utahctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2015See State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 43 , 108 P.3d 730 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s improper statement that the defendant had been asked to take a lie detector test was brief, vague, and not intentionally elicited, and because no further reference was made to it); State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57 , ¶¶ 38–39, 993 P.2d 837 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s reference to the defendant’s ‚other crimes‛ was vague and insignificant); State v. Case, 547 P.2d 221, 223 (Utah 1976) (holding that a mistrial was not necessary where a witness twice m	1	2015–2015
State v. Decorso green utah · 1999 2 sentences 2015See State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 43 , 108 P.3d 730 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s improper statement that the defendant had been asked to take a lie detector test was brief, vague, and not intentionally elicited, and because no further reference was made to it); State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57 , ¶¶ 38–39, 993 P.2d 837 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s reference to the defendant’s ‚other crimes‛ was vague and insignificant); State v. Case, 547 P.2d 221, 223 (Utah 1976) (holding that a mistrial was not necessary where a witness twice m 2015See State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 43 , 108 P.3d 730 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s improper statement that the defendant had been asked to take a lie detector test was brief, vague, and not intentionally elicited, and because no further reference was made to it); State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57 , ¶¶ 38–39, 993 P.2d 837 (holding that a mistrial was not necessary, because a witness’s reference to the defendant’s ‚other crimes‛ was vague and insignificant); State v. Case, 547 P.2d 221, 223 (Utah 1976) (holding that a mistrial was not necessary where a witness twice m	1	2015–2015
People v. Beagle green cal · 1972 2 sentences 1991App.1976) (where investigation has focused on defendant, Miranda warnings required before polygraph); People v. Carter, 7 Cal.App.3d 332 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 546, 549 (1970) ("Questioning during the course of a lie detector test certainly qualifies as a form of custodial interrogation."), overruled on other grounds, 6 Cal.3d 441 , 492 P.2d 1 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 (1972). 1991App.1976) (where investigation has focused on defendant, Miranda warnings required before polygraph); People v. Carter, 7 Cal.App.3d 332 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 546, 549 (1970) ("Questioning during the course of a lie detector test certainly qualifies as a form of custodial interrogation."), overruled on other grounds, 6 Cal.3d 441 , 492 P.2d 1 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 (1972).	1	1991–1991
People v. Ayers green nyappdiv · 1988 2 sentences 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) (“appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights”), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). . 1991But see, e.g., Whalen v. State, 434 A.2d 1346, 1352 (Del.1980) ("appearance at the police station for the polygraph test demonstrates a waiver of his Miranda rights"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1258 , 71 L.Ed.2d 449 (1982); People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847-48 (1988) (willingness to aid in investigation demonstrated that polygraph not custodial). [11] The state cites testimony to the effect that defendant did not consider himself under arrest even after he was formally arrested, suggesting this demonstrates that defendant could not have believed he was in cu	1	1991–1991

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