Court Opinion

ID: 9737900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:36:35.894046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:02.424161
License: Public Domain

STATON, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Majority correctly finds error in the trial court's failure to give a limiting instruction regarding the weight and effect of polygraph evidence. However, Sanchez waived this error when he failed to object to the court's final instructions and failed to tender a limiting instruction. Lyons v. State (1992), Ind.App., 600 N.E.2d 560, 567, reh. denied. While it is the duty of the trial court to properly instruct the jury, a defendant may not sit idly by while the court makes an error in instructing the jury and then argue on appeal that the error entitles him to a new trial. Burton v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1163, 1165-1166. This rationale is especially applicable under the cireumstances of this case, in which Sanchez expressly stipulated to the admission of the evidence in question.
The Majority states that because polygraph evidence is generally disfavored, the failure to give a limiting instruction cannot be harmless.1 This reasoning assumes that the failure to give a limiting instruction is fundamental error. An error in instructing the jury will not cireumvent our procedural rules unless the error is blatant, and the potential for harm is substantial and appears clearly on the face of the record. Blackmon v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 586, 590.
In this case, the potential for harm from omission of the specific instruction does not rise to the level of fundamental error. The trial court gave both a preliminary and a final instruction regarding the jury's exclusive role in determining the weight and ered-ibility of the evidence. These instructions applied to all evidence under consideration, including the polygraph examiner's testimony. Moreover, the record otherwise supports Sanchez's conviction. The victim's testimony regarding the incidents of molestation was unequivocal and consistent in content and language with her prior statements. See DeBruhl v. State (1989), Ind.App., 544 N.E.2d 542, 546 (the uncorroborated testimony of the victim is sufficient to support a conviction).
The omission of a specific instruction under these cireumstances was not blatant error, and did not deprive Sanchez of due process. Accordingly, defense counsel's failure to tender a limiting instruction waived the error on appeal. Lyons, supra; Burton, supra. Sanchez's conviction should be affirmed.

. Our supreme court has dictated otherwise. In Hare v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 7, the trial court admitted into evidence the results of a polygraph examination, but later refused the defendant's limiting instruction. Our supreme court concluded that although the limiting instruction should have been given, the error was harmless because the conviction was clearly supported by the record. Id. at 16.