Fоllowing a jury trial in Howard Superi- or Court Division I, Defendant-Appellant Thomas H. Couch was convicted of the crimes оf rape while armed with a deadly weapon, a class A felony, robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, a class B felony, and burglary, a class B felony. He was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive terms of forty (40) yеars for the rape conviction, ten (10) years for the robbery conviction, and ten (10) years for the burglary conviсtion, for a total of sixty (60) years.
We consider only one of the several issues raised in this direct appeal since its resolution is dispositive of the entire appeal. We find the court erred in not declaring a mistrial when the State's witness testified concerning Couch's polygraph examination.
The facts are as follows: on Septembеr 20, 1985, K.N. arrived home from work at *184 approximately 12:50 a.m. Approximately 10 minutes later, her babysitter departed, leaving K.N. home alone with her three sleeping children. K.N. watched television until she fell asleep on the couch,. Shе was awakened with a hand over her mouth and a knife at her throat. She could not clearly see the persоn's face, but could see a facial outline and physical build. K.N. testified that her assailant had a circumcised penis. She testified he forced her to commit fellatio and to have intercourse with him. He then left taking one of thе diamond rings she was wearing and $70.00 from her purse.
Immediately after the crime occurred, K.N. told the police she thought the assailant was Tim Ellis, a person she had previously dated. However, when the police requested she takе a polygraph examination concerning the identification of Tim Ellis she told the police she no longer thоught Ellis was her assailant. Approximately one month after the crime occurred she was shown a six person phоto array and she picked Appellant Couch's photo.
At trial Larry Martin testified he was a police informаnt and had known Couch for about two and one-half years. He also stated he had dated Couch's wife, Kimberly Couch, whilе the parties lived in Florida. Martin testified he saw Kimberly Couch wearing the ring which was taken from K.N., and he reported that fact to the Ko-komo Police as part of his informant duties. John Martin testified that he managed Palmers Jewelry Storе and that Couch brought in the ring to be sized. Couch's wife testified Couch had given her the ring as a gift. Dr. Jeffery Squires testified his examination showed that Couch was not circumcised.
During the State's case in chief Detective Sergeant Tom Melton of thе Kokomo Police Department was called to testify on two separate occasions.. During the second time he testified, the following ensued:
Q. Did he make a request to you at the time he denied the involvement?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that request?
A. That he submit to a polygraph examination.
Q. Was an examination conducted on him?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. After the examination was he still-
MR. FLEMING: Judge, I think we'rе going way far afield in this polygraph. Everybody, I think, everybody could polygraph.
JUDGE PARRY: You're excused to the Jury Room.
(JURY TO JURY ROOM)
JUDGE PARRY: Mr. Shrock, where are you heading?
MR. SHROCK: That after the polygraph test he rеmained a suspect. The door's open, Your Honor.
MR. FLEMING: How is it open?
MR. SHROCK: Because you didn't object at the time he stated that Mr. Couch asked for a polygraph. Now the fact the polygraph is mentioned-
MR. FLEMING: That doesn't open any door. I think it comes real close to mistrial. Mr. Shrock knows the results of polygraph tests aren't admissible.
MR. SHROCK: I understand. I understand that, and I didn't ask about the results. The only question I asked-
MR. FLEMING: I don't know what the-
JUDGE PARRY: I don't want to hear interrupted argument. Let him make his argument and you may make yours.
MR. SHROCK: The fact that the Defendant made a statement requesting a polygraph is part of the report and is admissible. Once that's not objected to and asked to be stricken from the record, then the results of taking the polygraph examination and the results are admissible. Once the door is open you can't cloge it. There's no partial objection here. It's got to be a total objection. It's got to be the way it was done in regards to Tim Ellis becausе Mr. Fleming anticipated the question and took care of it. The same *185 thing could have been done at this time but it was not. The door is now open. Now you control the production of evidence and if you decide that the information's too prejudicial, you have the opportunity to withdraw or order that it not be entered into evidence. My argument is once the door's open, it's admissible.
Record at 1084-1086.
Absent some form of waiver or stipulation by the parties, the results of polygraph examinations administered to witnesses or parties are not competent evidence in criminal prosecutions. Serrano v. State (1977),
The trial court is reversed. This case is remanded for a new trial.