Court Opinion

ID: 9705061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:55:42.356256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.713220
License: Public Domain

Murphy, C. J.,

dissenting:

I decline to join in the Court’s opinion for the reasons stated in my dissent in Collins. Moreover, the rule laid down by the majority in that case — that hypnosis enhanced testimony is per se inadmissible unless the recollections forming the substance of the testimony are clearly demonstrated to have existed before the hypnosis — does not fit well with the facts present in this case. The evidence at trial showed that the victim’s version of the criminal episode did not change as a result of hypnosis. She gave a detailed description of the crime and of her assailant, as well as an easily appreciated reason why she declined initially to identify the defendant, all prior to any use of hypnosis. Although the Court need not at this time establish rigid guidelines to govern all cases, the absence of a guiding rationale for development of the rule will no doubt result in other cases of this sort, where all evidence points to consistent pre- and post-hypnotic recollections, yet the Court can find no "clear demonstration” of pre-hypnotic recollection.
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Per Curiam:
The State has filed a motion for reconsideration which we shall deny.
The State asks that if its motion for reconsideration is denied, it should nevertheless be permitted the opportunity *376upon remand to demonstrate to the trial court that the testimony of the victim was in accord with pre-hypnotic statements. We believe the State should have that opportunity.

Motion for reconsideration denied.