and tendered an instruction that "purported to inform the jury that if they believed the police either 'destroyed and/or allowed to deteriorate evidence' then the jury could infer that the evidence would have been unf faith, and the record does not reveal bad faith or willful conduct. Dr. Burrows did not test the dura from the left side of the brain because she did not see the dura on the left side, and Dr. Moriarty testified that the dural edges can shrivel "to the point of appearing absent." Transcript at 766. Because negligent handling of evidence alone will not be grounds for reversal, we conclude that. the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing Ray's tendered instruction. See, e.g., Nettles, 565 N.E.2d at 1069; Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 425 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Even assuming the State may
holding that where the district courts sentencing decision was amply supported by the evidence and the defendant thus received a sentence merited by the evidence the defendant could not show the error affected his substantial rights holding that a consequence instruction was properly refused holding that instruction was not supported by the evidence and was properly refused where the defendant never seriously argued that the police exercised bad faith in failing to preserve evidence and the police gave a reasonable explanation holding that where defendant was charged with drug conspiracy it was unnecessary for the government to prove defendants presence at the sales and hence the alibi defense was not supported by the law and no instruction was required holding that evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible