Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 19
evidence about any score on such a test, nor any evidence of what any
score means. You must totally disregard the questions about taking liedetector
tests, test scores and their meanings, and treat the subject
as though you had never heard of it. Do all of the jurors understand
these instructions [The jurors nodded affirmatively, and when asked if
any had questions, nodded negatively.]"
Discussion
In the absence of a stipulation between the parties, the results of
a
polygraph examination, as well as the fact of an offer to take, a
refusal to
[*603] take, or the taking of a polygraph examination, are
inadmissible as
evidence in California criminal and civil proceedings. (Evid. Code, @
351.1;
People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 152, 193, 279 Cal. Rptr. 720, 807
P.2d 949;
Arden v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 713, 723, 239 Cal. Rptr. 68, 739
P.2d 1236;
People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 738, 763-764, 114 Cal. Rptr. 467,
523 P.2d
267.) But the present case is not one in which the results [**52] of a
polygraph test were admitted into evidence. There were only statements
by
counsel, which the trial court appropriately instructed the jury are
not
evidence. The trial court's instructions prevented any prejudice to
Simpson from
insinuations in counsel's questions. ( People v. Parrella (1958) 158
Cal. App.
2d 140, 147, 322 P.2d 83; see People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal. 3d at p.
194;
People v. Paul (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 32, 40, 144 Cal. Rptr. 431;
People v.
Babcock (1963) 223 Cal. App. 2d 813, 817-818, 36 Cal. Rptr. 178.)
This case is strikingly similar to People v. Parrella, supra, 158
Cal. App.
2d 140. There the defendant on direct examination by his own attorney
stated
that while in custody he volunteered to take, and did take, a lie
detector test.
The prosecutor did not object to this testimony on the ground the
defendant's
willingness to take a lie detector test was inadmissible; rather,
contending
that defendant had opened the door, the prosecutor asked the defendant
on
cross-examination for the results of the test. Defense counsel objected
that
this question was improper because the results [**53] of a lie
detector test
are not admissible evidence. The trial court ruled that the
prosecutor's