lie detector or polygraph test (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

lie detector or polygraph test in Texas

7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas 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 (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Lewis v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1973 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Lewis v. State, 500 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Tex. Crim.

2011Lewis v. State , 500 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973).

22
Lee v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1970 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
2 sentences

1973“In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: ‘It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.’ ” Citing many cases.

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

22
Romero v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1973 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1977–1987
2 sentences

1977The State relies on Roman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 252 , where this Court stated that the purpose of 38.24, supra, was "to reduce the possibility of the factfinder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only a part of the conversation, writing, act or declaration." In Romero v. State , Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 206 , the defendant urged on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over objection, the results of a lie detector or polygraph test.

1977The State relies on Roman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 252 , where this Court stated that the purpose of 38.24, supra, was “to reduce the possibility of the factfinder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only a part of the conversation, writing, act or declaration.” In Romero v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 206 , the defendant urged on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over objection, the results of a lie detector or polygraph test.

12
Davis v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1957 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1970–1973
2 sentences

1973See also Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 (1958); Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App.1964).

1973See also Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 (1958); Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App.1964).

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
Renesto v. State green
texcrimapp · 1970
2 sentences

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

1970Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 ; Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 ; Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 ; Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 ; Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 ; Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 ; Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247 S.W.2d 110 , rehearing denied 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 248 S.W.2d 130 .

21970–1973
Wall v. State green
texcrimapp · 1967
2 sentences

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

1970Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 ; Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 ; Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 ; Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 ; Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 ; Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 ; Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247 S.W.2d 110 , rehearing denied 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 248 S.W.2d 130 .

21970–1973
Peterson v. State green
texcrimapp · 1951
2 sentences

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

21970–1973
Placker v. State green
texcrimapp · 1961
2 sentences

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

21970–1973
Hart v. State green
texcrimapp · 1969
2 sentences

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

1970Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 ; Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 ; Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 ; Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 ; Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 ; Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 ; Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247 S.W.2d 110 , rehearing denied 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 248 S.W.2d 130 .

21970–1973
Stockwell v. State green
texcrimapp · 1957
2 sentences

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

21970–1973
Nichols v. State green
texcrimapp · 1964
2 sentences

1973See also Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 (1958); Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App.1964).

1970Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 ; Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 ; Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 ; Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 ; Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 ; Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 ; Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247 S.W.2d 110 , rehearing denied 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 248 S.W.2d 130 .

21970–1973
Peterson v. State green
texcrimapp · 1952
2 sentences

1973In Lee v. State, 455 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), this court wrote: “It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.” See Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v.’ State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247

1970Renesto v. State, 452 S.W.2d 498 ; Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 ; Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 ; Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335 ; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 350 S.W.2d 546 ; Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 , 308 S.W.2d 880 ; Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656 , 301 S.W.2d 669 ; Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 247 S.W.2d 110 , rehearing denied 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255 , 248 S.W.2d 130 .

21970–1973
Roman v. State green
texcrimapp · 1974
2 sentences

1977The State relies on Roman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 252 , where this Court stated that the purpose of 38.24, supra, was "to reduce the possibility of the factfinder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only a part of the conversation, writing, act or declaration." In Romero v. State , Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 206 , the defendant urged on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over objection, the results of a lie detector or polygraph test.

1977The State relies on Roman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 252 , where this Court stated that the purpose of 38.24, supra, was “to reduce the possibility of the factfinder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only a part of the conversation, writing, act or declaration.” In Romero v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 206 , the defendant urged on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over objection, the results of a lie detector or polygraph test.

11977–1977
Pulakis v. State green
alaska · 1970
1 sentence

1973In Romero , there was also an agreement to stipulate the results, and on that subject, the Court said: “In the instant case, we conclude as did the Alaska Supreme Court in Pulakis [Pulakis v. State, 476 P.2d 474 1970 ] that, based on our study, the results of polygraph tests should not be received into evidence, over objection, even if there had been a prior agreement or stipulation.

11973–1973

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check