State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (N.M. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (N.M. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
187 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 35 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chatwin v. Davis County (utd, 1996-08-01) · Strongest negative: State v. Anderson (nmctapp, 1993-03-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" State v. Anderson (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see State v. Dorsey, 87 N.M. 323 , 532 P.2d 912 (Ct.App.), aff'd, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975); Leo M.
cited Cited "but see" United States v. Julio Piccinonna
11th Cir. · 1989 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see id. at 602 n. 35 (courts generally hold polygraph results inadmissible even where there is a stipulation).
examined Cited "but see" Poole v. State (4×)
Md. · 1983 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184, 184-85 , 539 P.2d 204,204-05 (1975); cf. Commonwealth v. Vitello, 376 Mass. 426, 453-56 , 381 N.E.2d 582, 597-99 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chatwin v. Davis County
D. Utah · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Dorsey, 88 NM 184 , 539 P.2d 204, 205 (1975); 7 Commonwealth v. Juvenile (No. 1), 365 Mass. 421 , 313 N.E.2d 120 (1974); Witherspoon v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.3d 24 , 183 Cal.Rptr. 615 (1982). 8 Federal courts modified the general resistance to exclusion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dorfman
N.D. Ill. · 1981 · confidence medium
See generally State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274, 279, 283 , 371 P.2d 894, 900-01 (1962); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 365 Mass. 421, 433 , 313 N.E.2d 120, 128 (1974); State v. McDavitt, 62 N.J. 36, 46 , 297 A.2d 849, 854-55 (1972); State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184, 185 , 539 P.2d 204, 205 (1975); State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d 730, 742-43 , 216 N.W.2d 8, 13-15 (1974); Gianelli, supra note 9, at 1203, 1245-50; Strong, supra note 9, at 9-15; Tarlow, Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in 1975: An Aid in Determining Credibility in a Perjury-Plagued System, 26 Hastings L.Rev. 917, 947-48 (1975); Note, Th…
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Dean (4×) also: Cited "see"
Wis. · 1981 · confidence medium
Contrary, see State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204, 205 (1975).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Stanley (2×)
N.M. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184, 185 , 539 P.2d 204, 205 (1975) (suggesting the Rules of Evidence should not be applied mechanistically to defeat their purpose).
examined Cited "see" State v. Martin (4×)
N.M. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Blea (2×)
N.M. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975); State v. Beachum, 97 N.M. 682 , 643 P.2d 246 (Ct.App.1981), cert. quashed, 98 N.M. 51 , 644 P.2d 1040 (1982); accord Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).
discussed Cited "see" Wynn v. State (2×)
Ala. Crim. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1974); People v. Daniels, 102 Misc.2d 540 , 422 N.Y.S.2d 832, 837 (N.Y.Sup.
examined Cited "see" State v. French (4×)
N.H. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of X (2×)
Idaho · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975); State v. Anthony, 100 N.M. 735 , 676 P.2d 262 (Ct.App. 1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Syme (2×)
Idaho · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975); State v. Anthony, 100 N.M. 735 , 676 P.2d 262 (Ct.App.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jefferey Dale Ellis, Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Ann Ellis, Deceased v. International Playtex, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (2×)
4th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978) State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975)'.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Pleasant (2×)
Wash. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 87 N.M. 323 , 532 P.2d 912 (1975), aff'd, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 365 Mass. 421 , 313 N.E.2d 120 (1974); United States v. Ridling, 350 F. Supp. 91 (E.D.
STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner,
v.
Sammy T. DORSEY, Respondent
10361.
New Mexico Supreme Court.
Jul 31, 1975.
539 P.2d 204
Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Muxlow, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for petitioner., Chester H. 'Walter, Jr., Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, Appellate Defender, Don Klein, Jr., Associate Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for respondent.
Oman, McManus, Stephenson, Montoya, Sosa.
Cited by 89 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

OMAN, Justice.

This case is before us upon a writ of certiorari directed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment and sentence of the district court and remanded with instructions to grant defendant a new trial. State v. Dorsey, 87 N.M. 323, 532 P.2d 912 (Ct.App.1975). We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, we do so for slightly different reasons, and hereby overrule prior decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals to the extent hereinafter stated.

The Court of Appeals had previously disagreed with our prior decisions concerning the admissibility into evidence of the results of polygraph tests. State v. Alderete, 86 N.M. 176, 521 P.2d 138 (Ct.App.1974). The decisions of the Court of Appeals in Alderete were overruled by us, insofar as they departed from the earlier decisions of this Court announcing and affirming the requirements for the admissibility into evidence of polygraph tests. State v. Lucero, 86 N.M. 686, 526 P.2d 1091 (1974). As observed by the Court of Appeals in State v. Dorsey, supra, that court was bound by the Lucero decision. Alexander v. Delgado, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973).

The inadmissibility into evidence of polygraph tests over objection was first announced by us in State v. Trimble, 68 N.M. 406, 362 P.2d 788 (1961). Our rule of inadmissibility, except when the following requirements are met, was reaffirmed and reasserted as follows in State v. Lucero, supra:

“1. The tests were stipulated to by both parties to the case; 2. When no objection is offered at trial; 3. When the court has evidence of the qualifications of the polygraph operator to establish his expertise; 4. Testimony to establish the reliability of the testing procedure employed as approved by the authorities in the field; and 5. The validity of the tests made on the subject. * * *”

As pointed out by the Court of Appeals in State v. Dorsey, supra, the district court, in unchallenged findings of fact, held that requirements 3, 4 and 5 had been clearly satisfied. We add that the parties in fact so stipulated, and these findings and the decision of the Court of Appeals concerning them have not been challenged in these proceedings before us. Consequently, as did the Court of Appeals, we confine ourselves to a consideration of the validity of requirements 1 and 2. We agree that these two requirements are:

(1) Mechanistic in nature;

(2) Inconsistent with the concept of due process;

(3) Repugnant to the announced purpose and construction of the New Mexico Rules of Evidence [§§ 20-4—101 to 1102, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, Supp.1973)], that:

“These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration * * * and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined” ; and

(4) Particularly incompatible with the purposes and scope of Rules 401, 402, 702 and 703 of the New Mexico Rules of Evidence [§§ 20-4-401, 402, 702 and 703, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, Supp.1973)].

Insofar as it requires a stipulation by the parties to a polygraph test or the absence of objection thereto at trial before the results of such a test may be received into evidence, our opinion in State v. Lucero, supra, is hereby overruled, as are all other opinions of this Court and Court of Appeals to this effect.

The reversal of the district court judgment and the remand of this cause for a new trial, as ordered by the Court of Appeals, should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

McMANUS, C. J., and STEPHENSON, MONTOYA and SOSA, JJ., concur.