Opinion · Supreme Court of South Carolina
State v. Pressley
290 S.C. 251
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of South Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- South Carolina
- Date
- 1986-10-13
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- because the trial judge allowed repeated references to appellant’s submission to a polygraph examination, the jury instruction to disregard the polygraph results could not cure the prejudice to appellant
- repeated references to a polygraph examination could not be cured by an instruction for the jury to disregard the testimony where'it was shown that appellant confessed immediately after taking the examination
- “Evidence regarding the results of a polygraph test or the defendant’s willingness or refusal to submit to one is inadmissible.”
- where, on direct appeal, the Court found reversible error based on repeated references to the appellant's submission to a polygraph examination and the evidence that the appellant confessed immediately after taking the polygraph
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Pressley. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 12 opinions
Appellant was convicted of breach of trust and conspiracy. She contends she is entitled to a new trial because of numerous references at trial to her polygraph examination. We agree.
*252 Evidence regarding the results of a polygraph test or the defendant’s willingness or refusal to submit to one is inadmissible. State v. McGuire, 272 S. C. 547, 253 S. E. (2d) 103 (1979); State v. Britt, 235 S. C. 395, 111 S. E. (2d) 669 (1959). A trial judge should be meticulous in ensuring that the jury makes no improper inference from any reference to a polygraph. State v. McGuire.
The trial judge improperly allowed repeated referenees to appellant’s submission to a polygraph examination. The evidence as presented showed that appellant confessed immediately after taking the polygraph. In this context, the jury instruction to disregard the polygraph results could not cure the prejudice to appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on both counts with specific instructions that no mention of the polygraph be permitted. We need not address appellant’s remaining exceptions in light of this disposition.
Reversed and remanded.
Ness, C.J., and Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.