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.
7 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leeks v. Stategreen2 sentences1975But, extreme caution should be invoked to exclude error of this kind in a capital case, where the life or death of the defendant is involved. . . . ” ( 245 P.2d at page 771 ) In the instant case the defendant vigorously objected to the admission of testimony regarding the results of the lie detector test of Willie Paul Smith. 1970Under this proposition the defendant urges that under the decisions of this Court, the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible and the statement that McGuire, a suspect in the case 1 at the timé, had been given the test clearly implied that McGuire was not implicated. 1 While authority is cited by the defendant for the proposition that the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible (See Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326 , 245 P.2d 764 ), no authority is cited for the principal contention urged in this proposition. | 1 | 3 |
Stone v. Earpgreen2 sentences1977Reception of evidence of willingness to take the test could not have added any real proof on the issues for the jury although it might have accentuated passion and prejudice against appellant. [2] The Supreme Court of Michigan in Stone v. Earp, 331 Mich. 606 , 50 N.W.2d 172, 174 (1951), said: "In People v. Becker, 300 Mich. 562 , 2 N.W.2d 503 , 139 A.L.R. 1171 (1942) we held it was not error to refuse admission in evidence of the result of such tests for the reason that such tests used in ascertaining the truthfulness of a witness are still too much in the experimental field for courts to appr 1977Reception of evidence of willingness to take the test could not have added any real proof on the issues for the jury although it might have accentuated passion and prejudice against appellant. [2] The Supreme Court of Michigan in Stone v. Earp, 331 Mich. 606 , 50 N.W.2d 172, 174 (1951), said: "In People v. Becker, 300 Mich. 562 , 2 N.W.2d 503 , 139 A.L.R. 1171 (1942) we held it was not error to refuse admission in evidence of the result of such tests for the reason that such tests used in ascertaining the truthfulness of a witness are still too much in the experimental field for courts to appr | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Becker
green
2 sentences1951Another ease in which the use of the lie detector test was refused is that of People v. Becker, 1942, 300 Mich. 562 , 2 N. W. 2d 503, 505 , 139 A. L. 1951Another ease in which the use of the lie detector test was refused is that of People v. Becker, 1942, 300 Mich. 562 , 2 N. W. 2d 503, 505 , 139 A. L. | 2 | 1951–1977 |
Henderson v. State
green
2 sentences1968See Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326 , 245 P.2d 764 ; Looper v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 1018 ; Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 , 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 , cert. den., 342 U.S. 898 , 72 S.Ct. 234 , 96 L.Ed. 673 . 1952Cr. 45 , 230 P. 2d 495 , we rejected such evidence tendered by the defendant where he voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test, which test was given in the Henderson case by Officer Stege. | 2 | 1952–1968 |
Hames v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2009In Hames v. Anderson, 1977 OK 191, ¶ 8 , 571 P.2d 831 , a slander lawsuit, the plaintiff had voluntarily taken a lie detector test, and this fact was referenced to the jury. 2009In Hames v. Anderson, 1977 OK 191, ¶ 8 , 571 P.2d 831 , a slander lawsuit, the plaintiff had voluntarily taken a lie detector test, and this fact was referenced to the jury. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Looper v. State
green
1 sentence1968See Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326 , 245 P.2d 764 ; Looper v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 1018 ; Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 , 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 , cert. den., 342 U.S. 898 , 72 S.Ct. 234 , 96 L.Ed. 673 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Hanson v. Warden
green
1 sentence1968See Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326 , 245 P.2d 764 ; Looper v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 1018 ; Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 , 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 , cert. den., 342 U.S. 898 , 72 S.Ct. 234 , 96 L.Ed. 673 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1968As to the first contention, petitioner cites the case of Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 384 P.2d 54 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Twine v. Maehl
green
1 sentence1968See Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326 , 245 P.2d 764 ; Looper v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 1018 ; Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 , 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 , cert. den., 342 U.S. 898 , 72 S.Ct. 234 , 96 L.Ed. 673 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Lowry
green
2 sentences1951Until it is established that reasonable certainty follows from such tests, it would be error to admit in evidence the result thereof.” One of the most recent cases stating additional reasons for denial of the use of the lie detector test results in evidence is that of State v. Lowry, 1947, 163 Kan. 622 , 185 P. 2d 147, 150 , wherein it was said: “The practical effect of the admission of this testimony was to constitute a mechanical device — as reported by the operator- — a sort of witness in absentia on the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. 1951Until it is established that reasonable certainty follows from such tests, it would be error to admit in evidence the result thereof.” One of the most recent cases stating additional reasons for denial of the use of the lie detector test results in evidence is that of State v. Lowry, 1947, 163 Kan. 622 , 185 P. 2d 147, 150 , wherein it was said: “The practical effect of the admission of this testimony was to constitute a mechanical device — as reported by the operator- — a sort of witness in absentia on the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence1951C. 46, 293 F. 1013 , 34 A. L. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.