Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 20
question went too far, and instructed the jury that "'the question of
lie
detector has no place in the case. It has been determined that lie
detectors are
[***513] not admissible in evidence in a trial of a case.'" ( Id. at
pp.
144-145, 322 P.2d 83.) When the prosecutor mentioned it again during
final
argument the trial court again admonished the jury not to consider any
mention
of the test. ( Id. at p. 146, 322 P.2d 83.) The appellate court
affirmed.
It held the defendant's objectionable testimony to which the prosecutor
failed to
object did not open the door for the prosecutor to show the results of
the test,
but the prosecutor's questions were not prejudicial to the defendant in
light of
the trial court's instructions. ( Id. at p. 147, 322 P.2d 83.)
Here, the only evidence regarding a lie detector test elicited by
the
cross-examination was Simpson's testimony that he did not take and fail
one, and
the trial court specifically instructed the jury that plaintiffs were
bound by
that answer. Simpson's claim that the instructions were ineffective to
cure
contrary insinuations [**54] in counsel's questioning lacks merit
under the
circumstances. ( People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal. 3d 152, 194 [jury is
presumed
to have followed instructions]; People v. Paul, supra, 78 Cal. App. 3d
32, 40
[the testimony concerning the actual results of the lie detector test,
although
stricken, was favorable to the defendant, that he had passed it].) The
cases
[*604] cited by Simpson involved far more extensive or egregious
emphasis on
the results of the test. (Simpson cites People v. Wochnick (1950) 98
Cal. App.
2d 124, 128, 219 P.2d 70 [police officer extensively testified about
the lie
detector test he administered to the defendant and having asked
defendant at the
conclusion of it whether defendant had any explanation for the
responses of the
machine; held, despite a limiting instruction that this testimony was
admitted
only as background to the officer's accusatory statement and the
defendant's
answer, "the evidence of the partial results of the lie detector test
with
respect to defendant's reaction upon being shown the murder weapon was
indelibly