Opinion ID: 2518358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Was Kesselring's Right to a Fair Trial Violated by References to Polygraph Examinations Taken by Two Witnesses?

Text: Next, Kesselring argues that his right to a fair trial was violated by the admission of testimony regarding polygraph examinations taken by Holmes and Reece. Kesselring concedes that he did not object to this testimony and, in fact, his own defense counsel elicited the testimony. Nonetheless, he contends the trial court could have corrected the error sua sponte pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3423 by declaring a mistrial. We reject Kesselring's argument on this point. When a statement is elicited by defense counsel, the defendant may not complain of that error on appeal. [Citation omitted.] State v. Hernandez, 253 Kan. 705, 716, 861 P.2d 814 (1993). Although the invited error rule cannot be used as pretext for violating a defendant's constitutional rights, any error in the mention of the polygraph examinations does not rise to level of constitutional error. See State v. Deal, 271 Kan. 483, 492, 23 P.3d 840 (2001) (mere mention of the word polygraph is not grounds for a mistrial).