Court Opinion

ID: 9745647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:16:12.775727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:03.742592
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result
DeBruler, J.
In this case appellant filed a Verified Petition for Polygraph Examination, which included the provision :
“That said defendant does hereby expressly waive any and all objections, and unequivocally agrees that the said Report, may become a part of the Record in said Court, as well as becoming an exhibit in Defendant’s trial, as well as to stipulate taking the said Expert’s Deposition by interrogatories (or otherwise) or to testify in open Court.”
The objection of appellant’s trial counsel to the testimony of the polygraph operator at no time contained any claim or mention of appellant’s rights afforded by privilege against self-incrimination contained in Art. 1, § 14 of the Indiana Constitution or the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellant’s counsel objected to the findings of the operator as follows:
“Q. What took place there ?
A. I conducted a polygraph examination on Mr. Reid.
Q. Did you ask him questions ?
A. Yes I did.
MR. LAMBERSON: At this time we interpose an objection as to the result of any tests which the witness may have made for the reason the Supreme Court of Indiana has outlawed or overruled any tests made in a polygraph examination.”
The trial court sustained this objection. The same evidence was offered by the State in rebuttal. Appellant’s trial counsel renewed the above objection, however, it was then overruled. Appellant’s counsel does not argue on appeal that the admission of the polygraph findings during rebuttal violated any of his client’s constitutional rights. Since appel*171lant has not raised any constitutional issue with regard to the admission of the findings of the polygraph operator, and since he specifically waived any legal objection to the admission of the polygraph findings based on the unscientific nature of polygraph examinations, I concur that the trial court did not err in admitting this testimony.
Note.—Reported in 285 N. E. 2d 279.