Opinion ID: 1793148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Current Trend Toward Exclusion

Text: While it was said in State v. Hurd, supra , that a majority of courts have held hypnotically induced testimony admissible, the cases cited for that conclusion are from the previous decade. ( Hurd, 432 A.2d at p. 91). The more recent trend is toward exclusion of such testimony. McCormick on Evidence § 206 (1984 3d ed.); People v. Shirley, supra ; State v. Atwood, 39 Conn. Supp. 273, 479 A.2d 258 (1984). Collins v. Sup.Ct., supra. Typical of this trend is Maryland, which in 1968 permitted the testimony, treating the issue as one of weight rather than admissibility. Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A.2d 302 (1968). Harding was the leading opinion on this point, yet in 1982 Maryland reversed its position and held that a witness who has been hypnotized may not testify to induced recollections. Polk v. State, 48 Md.App. 382, 427 A.2d 1041 (1981); Collins v. State, supra . McCormick notes that even in those jurisdictions that previously held post-hypnotic testimony generally admissible, there is a trend toward insisting that rigorous safeguards be observed before the hypnotically refreshed memories are admissible, and [t]he more prevalent view is that testimony about the post-hypnotic memories is not admissible. McCormick, supra at 623. Courts adopting a rule of exclusion often rely on the test announced in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), that an expert witness may not testify on the basis of scientific methodology unless the principles on which he relies have achieved general acceptance within the scientific community. Some critics contend that Frye is too strict and will exclude helpful and probative evidence. McCormick, supra § 203; Latin and White, Remote Sensory Evidence and Environmental Law, 64 Cal.L.Rev. 1300 (1976). We do not have to resolve that issue in this case, as we would find the hypnotically refreshed testimony inadmissible by either the Frye test, or some form of it, or by traditional evidentiary concepts. Unif.R.Evid. 403. To this same effect see McCormick, supra at 633.