State v. Pressley

The STATE, Respondent v. Pamela J. PRESSLEY, Appellant

State v. Pressley, 349 S.E.2d 403 (S.C. 1986)

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 13, 1986
Docket: No. 22617
Judges: Gregory, Ness, Harwell, Chandler, Finney
Citations: 349 S.E.2d 403290 S.C. 2511986 S.C. LEXIS 430

Cited by 9 5 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Gregory

Gregory, Justice:

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(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)

State v. Johnson, 512 S.E.2d 795 (S.C. 1999)
(“Evidence regarding the results of a polygraph test or the defendant’s willingness or refusal to submit to one is inadmissible.”)

State v. Samuel, 735 S.E.2d 541 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)
(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)

Bruno v. State, 556 S.E.2d 393 (S.C. 2001)

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Bruno v. State556 S.E.2d 393 (S.C. 2001)
State v. Samuel735 S.E.2d 541 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)
State v. Johnson512 S.E.2d 795 (S.C. 1999)
State v. Powers501 S.E.2d 116 (S.C. 1998)
In the Interest of Robert R.531 S.E.2d 301 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Thrift440 S.E.2d 341 (S.C. 1994)

Most recent

State v. Samuel735 S.E.2d 541 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)
Bruno v. State556 S.E.2d 393 (S.C. 2001)
In the Interest of Robert R.531 S.E.2d 301 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Johnson512 S.E.2d 795 (S.C. 1999)
State v. Powers501 S.E.2d 116 (S.C. 1998)
State v. Wright471 S.E.2d 700 (S.C. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Britt, 111 S.E.2d 669 (S.C. 1959)	50
	State v. McGuire, 253 S.E.2d 103 (S.C. 1979)	32

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list