Carpenter v. State, 468S67

• Decision Date: 13 November 1968
• Docket Number: No. 468S67,468S67
• Citation: 241 N.E.2d 347,251 Ind. 428,15 Ind.Dec. 724
• Parties: Roy K. CARPENTER, Roy Lee Bolen, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 347

241 N.E.2d 347

251 Ind. 428

Roy K. CARPENTER, Roy Lee Bolen, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 468S67.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 13, 1968.

John A. Kendall, Joe Stevenson Stevenson, Kendall & Stevenson, Danville, for appellants.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

LEWIS, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from separate convictions of Kidnapping pursuant to Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., (1956 Repl.), § 10--2901. The appellants were tried jointly by the court, without intervention of a jury, and received life sentences.

One of the assigned errors relied upon by the appellants was that the trial court committed reversible error by considering evidence of the appellant's submission to a lie detector test.

At the conclusion of the evidence on November 13, 1967, the appellants, in the presence of their counsel, agreed to submit to a lie-detector test. The trial judge stated that the trial would be continued and that the results of the examination would be admitted into evidence and be considered by the court in its determination.

On December 11, 1967, the results, in the form of a letter from the Indiana State Police Laboratory, were 'filed in open court'. The following excerpts from the record depict the above events:

'THE COURT: All right, then. The defendants will be remanded in the custody of the Sheriff in lieu of bond in the amount of $50,000.00. The matter will be continued. The results of the tests will be admitted or become a part of the evidence in this case and considered by the court in its determination.' (Nov. 13, 1967)

'And afterwards to-wit: On the 11th day of December, 1967, the same being the 76th Judicial Day of the September Term, 1967, of the Hendricks Circuit Court, before the Honorable Richard J. Groover, sole Judge thereof, the following proceedings were had herein, viz:

Results of polygraph test is now filed herein, which results are in the following words and figures, to-wit:

(A letter from Mr. Kenneth W. Houck, F/Sergeant, Indiana State Police Laboratory, in which the results of the lie-detector tests were described.)' (December 11, 1967)

Examination of this record reveals that there is no showing that the results of the examination were ever properly introduced into evidence. There is no reporter's exhibit mark attached or assigned to the exhibit; nor is there any showing that the appellants or their counsel were present. The author of the letter was neither under oath nor present in court for examination or corss-examination. The letter was not authenticated in any way.

In addition to the letter not having been properly introduced into evidence, it was incompetent by reason of being hearsay evidence. Hearsay may be in written form as well as being oral. In Romey v. Glass (1950), 120 Ind.App. 279, 91 N.E.2d 850, the following appears:

'The court admitted in evidence many hospital, doctor and nursing bills, and bills for fuel oil and other supplies * * *. This evidence was hearsay. State v. Schaller, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 128, 40 N.E.2d 976; Speck v. Kramer, 1926, 84 Ind.App. 646, 151 N.E. 37; 31 C.J.S. Evidence § 194 (p. 930). * * *'

Also, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, second district, in Belk v. State (1964), Fla., 167 So.2d 239, made the following statement:

'Appellant's proffer of a letter or its contents into evidence was refused and she raises this as a point on her appeal. The letter was written by appellant's daughter to a third person and its contents tended to corroborate certain testimony given by appellant and, without question, its contents were favorable both to appellant and to the daughter. The daughter was available to testify but was not called...