Christopher L. Kimble v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 85A02-1702-CR-417

In 1996, C.D. (born Oct. 1989) alleged that Christopher Kimble entered her bedroom, removed her underwear, and touched her vagina with his hands and penis; she testified he “tried to go inside.”
Kimble was interviewed and in May 1997 signed a stipulation and consent to a polygraph; examiner Joseph Clingenpeel concluded “deception indicated.”
Charges filed in 1997 included child molesting and attempted child molesting; an amended information (Dec. 1997) alleged Count II as attempted child molesting (Class B).
At a December 2016 jury trial, the court admitted the 1997 polygraph report over objection, after finding Kimble had stipulated to admission and the examiner testified about procedure and qualifications.
After the State rested, the trial court permitted the State to amend Count II (replace “pants” with “underwear,” remove “moving it in an up and down movement,” and add language alleging Kimble touched his penis around her vaginal area); Kimble was convicted of attempted child molesting; conviction affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Kimble's Argument	Held
1. Admissibility of polygraph results	Admissible: stipulation executed; examiner testified to qualifications and test conditions; any error harmless given victim's testimony	Admission improper under Sanchez prerequisite (examiner lacked recollection and underlying charts); prejudice to defense	No abuse of discretion; trial foundation adequate and admission harmless given strong independent evidence (victim testimony)
2. Motion to amend information after State rested	Amendment was one of form, not substance; core element (substantial step toward intercourse) unchanged; no prejudice	Amendment removed the key factual allegation defense had prepared to rebut (the "up and down" movement), prejudicing ability to defend	No abuse of discretion; amendment did not alter essential elements or prejudice defendant; jury instructions reflected amended language
3. Sufficiency of evidence for attempted child molesting	Victim testified defendant removed her underwear, touched her vagina with penis and hands, and tried to enter — sufficient for intent and substantial step	Victim’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable (recollection from age 4, later testimony decades after); intent unclear	Evidence sufficient: jury could infer mens rea and a substantial step from victim’s testimony and defendant’s conduct

Sanchez v. State, 675 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. 1996) (polygraph admissibility prerequisites)
Majors v. State, 773 N.E.2d 231 (Ind. 2002) (polygraph admission subject to harmless-error analysis and effect on verdict is paramount)
Davidson v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind. 1990) (polygraph admissibility where examiner testified to training and test conditions)
Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400 (Ind. 2014) (amendment of information: distinction between form and substance; prejudice inquiry)
Boling v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (mens rea for sexual offenses may be inferred from conduct and natural sequence)