The opinion
HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result.
Our Supreme Court in White v. State (1978), Ind., 381 N.E.2d 481 , did not impliedly adopt the requirement set out in Owens v. State (1978), Ind.App., 373 N.E.2d 913 . Owens v. State, supra, addressed itself to a written stipulation by the prosecuting attorney and the defendant regarding the introduction of the results of a polygraph test. It did not discuss or address itself to a waiver by the defendant of an objection to a polygraph test being admitted.
The Supreme Court in White v. State, supra, 381 N.E.2d at 484 , stated, “ ‘some form of waiver’ is all that is required.” In that case it permitted the introduction of a polygraph test since the defendant in open court and being questioned by her attorney and the court expressly waived and agreed to allow the results of a polygraph test into evidence. The Supreme Court in Reid v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 166 , 285 N.E.2d 279 expressly approved a written waiver which permitted a polygraph examination into evidence. In that case the verified petition for polygraph examination included the following 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.’ ”
285 N.E.2d at 281 .
In the present case the waiver form signed falls short of the waiver approved in Reid v. State, supra. A reading of the waiver in this case could well be interpreted as a release from liability to the Sheriff of Elk-hart County and the Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department. There is no mention as to waiver of the objection to the polygraph test being used at trial. I therefore join in the conclusion that the admission of the polygraph test over objection was error.