Opinion ID: 1155936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Previous Polygraph Test

Text: That said in the previous subsection of this dissent with reference to a limiting or curing instruction relative to the Michigan incident is equally applicable to that relative to the previous polygraph test. The portion of the tape was deleted and the jury was instructed to disregard the deleted part. The majority opinion discusses making the results of the test known to the jury, and it cites cases relative thereto. Certainly there is no suggestion that the results of the Michigan polygraph case were made known to the jury, and discussion concerning such is misplaced. If such discussion is founded upon the statement of appellant that I had a polygraph taken in reference to my daughter's charges against me, which was totally erroneous  (emphasis added), not only are the words which was totally erroneous improperly taken to modify and apply to the results of the polygraph test instead of modifying and applying to the more recent words in the sentence, charges against me, but such interpretation would make the comment to be gratuitous, and any error of the type here alleged would be invited error. The doctrine of `invited error' embodies the principle that a party will not be heard to complain on appeal of errors which he himself induced or provoked the court or the opposite party to commit.    5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 713 (1962). The doctrine has long been recognized in Wyoming: It is a general rule that an error to be available on appeal must have occurred without the express or implied consent of the appellant.    Schloredt v. Boyden, 9 Wyo. 392, 403-404, 64 P. 225 (1901).