what effect the scrivener’s error had on the jury. As we have already concluded, the parties stipulated to the trial court’s answers to the jury’s questions, but by erroneously inserting Perry’s first name into question three, the trial court gave the jury a version of the questions and answers that Perry had not stipulated to. Neither the parties nor the trial court recognized the error, and the jury returned a guilty verdict one hour later. The jury was never informed of the mistake and the trial court did not question the jury to make sure that it had understood that the third question should have referred to Michael, not Tony. We emphasize that a trial court’s typographical error does not necessarily mandate reversal. See, e.g., Broadus v. State, 487 N.E.2d 1298, 1306 (Ind.1986) (<HOLDING>); Elmore v. State, 688 N.E.2d 213, 220
holding that a typographical error on the jury verdict form was harmless error because the trial court polled the jurors after the mistake was discovered to make sure that they understood the verdict that they had entered holding that the defendant waived his opportunity to challenge a facially inconsistent verdict where he failed to raise the issue before the jurys discharge and rejecting the defendants argument that he did not have an opportunity to object when the verdict had been read aloud and the jury had been polled holding that after court dismissed case at plaintiffs request notwithstanding the fact that jury had deliberated upon the case and indicated that it had reached a verdict there was no case pending in court on which a verdict could be predicated and the information which the judge got from an inspection of the petition handed to him by the foreman of the jury was information which he received as an individual and not as a judge of the court and further holding that despite violation of defendants right to receive the verdict that was purportedly reached the writing incorporated in the bill of exceptions as a verdict of the jury was in law no verdict because it was not received in court and published as required by law and was instead entirely extraneous and extrajudicial holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction