*1 1073 Dart, Gary Norman, W. for appellee. Oklahoma, Appellant, of The STATE
v. OPINION COOK, Jr., Appellee. Paul Chris BRETT, Judge: No. O-77-405. herein, The Cook, defendant Chris Paul of Appeals Court Criminal of Oklahoma. Jr., charged was and tried to the court in 30, Jan. 1978. Court, the District Cleveland County, Case CRF-76-430,
No. with the offense of Un- lawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, in violation of 63 Supp. O.S.1972 2 401 B. The § State offered the testimo- ny police of officers that they had wit- nessed a transaction in which defendant sold a controlled substance to per- another son. The defense offered his own testimo- ny and testimony person of the pur- who portedly purchased drugs the from him to the effect that the defendant pos- had not any drugs sessed that evening and that he had neither sold attempted nor to sell any controlled substances purported pur- to the chaser. After presented both sides had evidence, their the court offered to with- any hold final in judgment the case if the defendant agree would to take polygraph and pentothal sodium tests. The assistant district who attorney prosecuted the case the offered services of a Norman Police Department polygraph expert in adminis- tering the tests. The court noted that the evidence obtained from probably these tests would not be admissible into evidence. the After defendant submitted to testing by persons extensive trained in ad tests, such ministering attempted he to in the results of the into troduce tests evi objection dence. The State’s to the intro sustained, duction of the evidence was but 7, 1976, in a court minute dated December the found judge that the defendant not was guilty stating: objection “State’s to the introduction of the results of both the detector’ and ‘lie. ‘truth voluntarily serum’ tests he under- sustained, exceptions took allowed de- Trimble, parties Preston fendant. Atty., Reginald A. Dist. On announcement of rest, however, Gaston, D. the Atty., Asst. Dist. Robert -T.Ren- Court finds such will- nie, Jr., Intern, Legal appellant. ingness for some of the neutralized inferenc-
1074 doubt, it is reasonable beyond its case a case to the in the inherent State’s
es
his
that
the defend-
beyond
suggestion
all
from
persuasive
not
clear
was
extent
it
that
doubt,
not
he did not think
is found
ant
the tests that
defendant
take
reasonable
be-
proved
and
bond
had
its case
discharged
actually
his
the State
guilty, ordered
a
as
In
case such
yond a reasonable doubt.
exonerated.”
whol-
one,
testimony
the
consists
where
this
perfected a
the
has
ruling,
State
From this
interpretations of
ly
persons’
different
of
on a
this
Reserved
timely
to
Court
appeal
events,
necessary
the trier
it is
for
certain
O.S.1971,
22
pursuant
to
Question of Law
of the
of
the demeanor
fact
to consider
the trial court
asserting that
1053[3],
§
which wit-
in order to determine
witnesses
the defendant
acquitted
have
should not
Here,
will-
the defendant’s
to believe.
ness
to
willingness
of his
solely
grounds
on the
an
of his
ingness
aspect
to take the test was
tests.
pentothal
and sodium
polygraph
take
the
demeanor,
by
considered
which was
the results of
jurisdictions now allow
Some
he
him-
way
as the
conducted
judge, much
into evidence for
to be admitted
such tests
in his
testify
he
stand to
when
took the
self
spec
under certain
purposes
certain limited
judge.
by
was
the
own behalf
considered
Annot., 53 A.L.R.3d
See
ified conditions.
the
holding
We
not
that
defendant’s
are
suggesting
cases
(1973), for federal
1005
be
to
such tests should
willingness
take
the
of
under which
results
circumstances
consideration,
its
jury
to a
for
See,
presented
v.
would be allowed.
U. S.
such tests
the circum-
say
cannot
that under
but we
(8th
1977);
Oliver,
737
Circuit
U.
525 F.2d
case,
judge
the trial
abused
of this
stances
(10th
Russo,
36
U. S.
L.Ed.2d
reasons, the
foregoing
the above and
For
Tyler
Pey
F.Supp.,
(E.D.Mich.1972);
v.
90
hereby
of the
is
judge
decision
trial
below
1968).
ton,
(E.D.Virginia
1351
F.Supp.
294
AFFIRMED.
Nevertheless,
in Oklahoma
controlling law
State,
Here, the results of and were not
not into evidence entered Although at by the trial court.
considered of evidence the presentation
the end of the proven that the had
trial court stated State