Opinion ID: 1349991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Inadmissibility Approach.

Text: A growing number of state courts have adopted a general rule that hypnotically refreshed testimony is inadmissible, a position first taken in State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn.1980). See State v. Mena, 128 Ariz. 226, 624 P.2d 1274 (1981); People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18, 641 P.2d 775, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S.Ct. 133, 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982); Strong v. State, Ind., 435 N.E.2d 969 (1982); Collins v. State, 52 Md.App. 186, 447 A.2d 1272 (1982); People v. Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 329 N.W.2d 743 (1982), modified on other grounds, 417 Mich. 968, 336 N.W.2d 751 (1983); State v. Palmer, 210 Neb. 206, 313 N.W.2d 648 (1981); People v. Hughes, 88 A.D.2d 17, 452 N.Y.S.2d 929 (1982); Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. 97, 436 A.2d 170 (1981). At least one federal court also follows this rule. See United States v. Valdez, 722 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir.1984). This approach appears to be gaining in judicial favor. See Note, Pretrial Hypnosis and its Effect on Witness Competency in Criminal Trials, 62 Neb.L.Rev. 336, 346 (1983). These decisions reflect a common concern with the present state of the art of hypnosis. They elect to preclude the admission of hypnotically refreshed testimony because the indices of unreliability inherent in normal memory reappear in more extreme forms when the witness is hypnotized. The safeguards theory, first enunciated by Hurd, is deemed inadequate and impractical in alleviating this unreliability. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d at 63 n. 44, 641 P.2d at 802 n. 44, 181 Cal.Rptr. at 270 n. 44. In reaching the judgment that hypnosis, as a scientific method for improving a witness's recollection, is unreliable, many courts have determined that the scientific community has not recognized hypnosis as a generally reliable method of enhancing a witness's recollection to the extent that it should be used in judicial proceedings. See Mena, 128 Ariz. at 231, 624 P.2d at 1279; Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. at 110, 436 A.2d at 177. These cases rely upon the standard established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). This widely recognized and cited case formulated the general rule that expert testimony on a new scientific technique can only be admitted when that technique has gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Id. at 1014. Courts relying upon Frye scrutinize the scientific testimony and literature to determine whether hypnosis has gained such standing and scientific recognition among [the] authorities as would justify the courts in admitting hypnotically refreshed testimony. Id. As the Mack court stated, Under the Frye rule, the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate. 292 N.W.2d at 768 (Minn.1980). Courts which adopt the view that hypnotically refreshed testimony is inadmissible reject both the notion that a witness's having been hypnotized goes only to his credibility and the belief that the unreliability inherent in hypnosis can be eliminated or sufficiently curbed by following certain procedural safeguards. Valdez, 722 F.2d at 1202. By holding hypnotically refreshed testimony inadmissible, these courts risk excluding evidence which may be both relevant and probative on certain issues. Id. at 1201. Despite this potential loss of evidence, the unreliability of the hypnotic process and its unacceptability within the scientific community have led these courts to conclude that the fairest practice is to keep hypnotically refreshed testimony out of judicial proceedings. Several courts, while adopting a general rule of inadmissibility, have refrained from making the rule absolute. The Fifth Circuit noted that in a given case, the evidence favoring admissibility might make the probative value of the testimony outweigh its prejudicial effect. If adequate procedural safeguards have been followed, corroborative post-hypnotic testimony might be admissible. Valdez, 722 F.2d at 1203. The California Supreme Court exempted testimony of a criminal defendant himself from its rule of inadmissibility. The Court created this necessary exception to avoid impairing the fundamental right of an accused to testify in his own behalf. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d at 67, 641 P.2d at 805, 181 Cal.Rptr. at 273. Furthermore, courts which have ruled hypnotically refreshed testimony inadmissible have not precluded the testimony of a previously hypnotized witness concerning matters related prior to the hypnotic session, so long as the testimony does not relate the fact that the witness has been hypnotized. State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court of Arizona, 132 Ariz. 180, 209-10, 644 P.2d 1266, 1295 (1982); Shirley, 31 Cal.3d at 67, 641 P.2d at 805, 181 Cal.Rptr. at 273; Mack, 292 N.W.2d at 771. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 294 Pa.Super. 171, 439 A.2d 805 (1982). The general approach is to find hypnotically refreshed testimony inadmissible subject to these limited exceptions.