Harris v. State, No. 1284S511

Docket NºNo. 1284S511
Citation481 N.E.2d 382
Case DateAugust 15, 1985
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 382

481 N.E.2d 382
Sherman L. HARRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1284S511.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Aug. 15, 1985.

Page 383

Thomas A. Murto, Murto & Holbrook, Goshen, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of Robbery, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to a twenty (20) year term of imprisonment.

The facts are: At approximately 8:00 p.m. on February 7, 1983, Leah and Howard Hammon were leaving a department store in Elkhart, Indiana. As they approached their truck, Howard proceeded ahead of Leah to unlock the vehicle. When Howard walked ahead, appellant grabbed Leah's purse and bumped her in the back. Leah fell to the ground, still holding her purse. Appellant, tugging at the strap of

Page 384

the purse, swung Leah back and forth as he attempted to take possession of the purse. Leah finally lost her grip, at which time appellant fled.

The Hammons, by means of a composite drawing and a review of several arrays of photographs, were able to identify appellant as Leah's assailant. Appellant was charged with robbery as a Class C felony. A trial on that charge resulted in a hung jury. The State then filed an amended information charging appellant with robbery as a Class A felony. A second jury trial resulted in a conviction on the amended charge.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a polygraph examination. Prior to the first trial, a stipulation for admission of polygraph evidence was executed by the deputy prosecutor, appellant and his attorney. At the second trial the prosecution was permitted to introduce the polygraph evidence. Appellant argues the stipulation was valid only for the trial for robbery as a Class C felony and not for the subsequent trial for a Class A felony.

As a general rule, the results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible at trial absent a valid stipulation between the parties. Alexander v. State (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 1068; Dean v. State (1982), Ind., 433 N.E.2d 1172. This Court has imposed a strict requirement that the stipulation must be signed both by the defendant and by a representative of the prosecuting attorney's office. Helton v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 538; Pavone v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 162, 402 N.E.2d 976. Where there is a valid stipulation, the trial court may decide within its discretion whether to admit the test results. Alexander, supra; Pavone, supra.

The stipulation in the instant case satisfied the strict requirement imposed by this Court. At the second trial appellant objected to the admission of the polygraph report, on the ground the stipulation was valid only for a trial on a Class C felony charge. In the stipulation the parties agreed as follows:

"1. That the Defendant is charged in this cause with the offense of Robbery, a Class C Felony.

2. That the Defendant agrees to submit himself to polygraph examination with D.R. Thornburg concerning his alleged involvement or non-involvement in the crime alleged.

3. That the Defendant and the State of Indiana agree that the results of said polygraph examination shall be admitted into evidence at the trial by either the State of Indiana or the Defendant at any time determined appropriate by either party.

"WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree that the Defendant shall submit himself to a polygraph examination and that the results of said polygraph examination shall be admitted as evidence in this cause at the trial to be scheduled in the future." (Emphasis added.)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the polygraph evidence at the second trial. The court could have reasonably concluded that item one was merely an agreement of fact, not a limitation on the use of the stipulation. See Willis v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 269, 374 N.E.2d 520. The second trial was based on the same facts, with the exception of the question of bodily injury to the victim, and the same underlying criminal conduct as the first.

In Willis, supra, the defendant's motion to correct error was granted, necessitating a second trial. The defendant attempted to prevent the readmission of polygraph evidence based on the argument that his stipulation was applicable only to the first trial. While the instant case presents a factual distinction, in that the charge was elevated to a Class A felony prior to appellant's second trial, we nevertheless believe the reasoning set forth in Willis to be applicable to the circumstances presented here. After addressing the validity of the controverted stipulation, Justice Pivarnik stated:

Page 385

"In addition, there was nothing adduced indicating a limited use of the stipulation. This was not a new set of facts to be tried, but only a second trial on the same charges. Once a stipulation is filed with the court, unless both parties agree to its withdrawal, or it is limited in its use, it is as effective in a second trial on the same charges as it was in the first trial." Willis, supra 268 Ind. at 272, 374 N.E.2d at 522.

We find no error in the admission of the polygraph evidence.

Appellant contends the amending of the information was motivated by prosecutorial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • State v. Porter, No. 15363
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 24 Junio 1997
    ...State v. Fain, 116 Idaho 82, 86-87, 774 P.2d 252, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 917, 110 S.Ct. 277, 107 L.Ed.2d 258 (1989); Harris v. State, 481 N.E.2d 382, 384 (Ind.1985); State v. Losee, 354 N.W.2d 239, 242 (Iowa 1984); Corbett v. State, 94 Nev. 643, 644, 584 P.2d 704 (1978); State v. McDavitt, ......
  • Bergmann v. State, No. 4-585A140
    • United States
    • 26 Diciembre 1985
    ...Failure to properly raise issues in the motion to correct errors also results in waiver of those issues. Harris v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 382, 386; Lowery v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 1214, V. Reckless Homicide Convictions The Bergmanns contend the guilty verdicts for reckless ......
  • State v. Johnson, No. 97-1360-CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 18 Febrero 2000
    ...appeal"). 4. State v. Wilkins, 534 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 1988); Griffin v. State, 464 S.E.2d 371, 376 (Ga. 1995); Harris v. State, 481 N.E.2d 382, 385-86 (Ind. 1985); Woods v. State, 775 S.W.2d 552, 555-56 (Mo. App. 1989)(deciding in a review for plain error that the filing of more ser......
  • Rynerson v. City of Franklin, No. 41S05-9603-CV-00209
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 Agosto 1996
    ...without a valid stipulation between the parties. Sauzer-Johnsen v. Sauzer, 544 N.E.2d 564, 568 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (citing Harris v. State, 481 N.E.2d 382, 384 (Ind.1985)). The trial court has discretion to admit polygraph results where there is a valid stipulation. Id. The stipulation must b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • State v. Porter, No. 15363
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 24 Junio 1997
    ...State v. Fain, 116 Idaho 82, 86-87, 774 P.2d 252, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 917, 110 S.Ct. 277, 107 L.Ed.2d 258 (1989); Harris v. State, 481 N.E.2d 382, 384 (Ind.1985); State v. Losee, 354 N.W.2d 239, 242 (Iowa 1984); Corbett v. State, 94 Nev. 643, 644, 584 P.2d 704 (1978); State v. McDavitt, ......
  • Bergmann v. State, No. 4-585A140
    • United States
    • 26 Diciembre 1985
    ...Failure to properly raise issues in the motion to correct errors also results in waiver of those issues. Harris v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 382, 386; Lowery v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 1214, V. Reckless Homicide Convictions The Bergmanns contend the guilty verdicts for reckless ......
  • State v. Johnson, No. 97-1360-CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 18 Febrero 2000
    ...and appeal"). 4. State v. Wilkins, 534 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 1988); Griffin v. State, 464 S.E.2d 371, 376 (Ga. 1995); Harris v. State, 481 N.E.2d 382, 385-86 (Ind. 1985); Woods v. State, 775 S.W.2d 552, 555-56 (Mo. App. 1989)(deciding in a review for plain error that the filing of more seri......
  • Rynerson v. City of Franklin, No. 41S05-9603-CV-00209
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 Agosto 1996
    ...without a valid stipulation between the parties. Sauzer-Johnsen v. Sauzer, 544 N.E.2d 564, 568 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (citing Harris v. State, 481 N.E.2d 382, 384 (Ind.1985)). The trial court has discretion to admit polygraph results where there is a valid stipulation. Id. The stipulation must b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT