Court Opinion

ID: 9712693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:58:32.672156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.796515
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion but I feel that the questions surrounding the use of hypnosis are so complex that further clarification of our position is necessary. This Court has addressed the hypnosis issues in two prior major cases. As the majority points out, in Strong v. State, (1982) Ind., 435 N.E.2d 969, we held that evidence derived from a witness while he is under hypnosis is inherently unreliable and must be excluded as having no probative value. Next, in Pearson v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 468, we held that the fact that a witness had been hypnotized prior to trial did not make that witness totally incompetent to testify, and that the witness could testify posthypnotically to what he or she was able to recall before hypnosis Furthermore, we held that when such a witness testified, the facts surrounding the hypnosis session, as well as the degree to which the witness's statements were changed by the hypnosis session, must be presented to the jury in order for the jury to judge the reliability of the witness's testimony. Finally, we held that admission of testimony which was in addition to or different from the prehypnotic recall, although such testimony was inherently unreliable, was not per se reversible error, when the changes in the testimony were not significant and the jury 'had sufficient facts to be able to judge the reliability of the witness's perception of the events which occurred before the hypnosis session.
In the instant case, this Court affirms the above holdings but finds that the change in Szeszycki's identification testimony was of such underlying significance to the trial that the admission of this testimony was reversible error. I agree fully with this holding.
It is clear that Indiana has wisely not adopted the "total exclusion" rule which is used in some jurisdictions where a previously hypnotized witness is incompetent to testify in a criminal trial about any events which were the subject of hypnosis. People v. Shirley, (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 641 P.2d 775; People v. Gonzales, (1981) 108 Mich.App. 145, 310 N.W.2d 306; State v. Palmer, (1981) 210 Neb. 206, 313 N.W.2d 648; Commonwealth v. Nazaroviteh, (1981) 496 Pa. 97, 436 A.2d 170; State v. Mack, (1980) Minn., 292 N.W.2d 764.
One state which had originally adopted the "total exclusion" rule has recently modified its position. Arizona now allows a previously hypnotized witness to testify with regard to matters which he was able to recall and relate prior to hypnosis. State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, (1982) 182 Ariz. 180, 644 P.2d 1266 (supplemental opinion on rehearing) (modifying in part, State v. Mena, (1981) 128 Ariz. 226, 624 P.2d 1274).
Our position on hypnosis also does not follow those jurisdictions which allow the admission of all hypnotically refreshed testimony and hold that the problems inherent in its use go to the weight of the evidence. Chapman v. State, (1982) Wyo., 638 P.2d 1280; People v. Smrekar, (1979) 68 Ill.App.3d 379, 24 Ill.Dec. 707, 385 N.E.2d 848; State v. McQueen, (1978) 295 N.C. 96, 244 S.E.2d 414. Rather our position is between these two extremes.
The instant case sets out this Court's position on the evidentiary use of testimony of a previously hypnotized witness as: (1) *680the witness is not totally incompetent to testify and there will be no error when the witness testifies to what was remembered before the hypnosis; (2) any evidence derived from a witness while he or she is under hypnosis is inherently unreliable and must be excluded as having no probative value; (8) if evidence that is the product of a hypnosis session is admitted during trial, it will not be reversible error if the jury is aware of all the circumstances surrounding the hypnosis session and the degree to which the witness's statements were changed by the hypnosis, and if the changes in the witness's statements were not significant or did not relate to essential elements of the offense. This position necessarily requires a case-by-case determination of the effect of the admission of testimony from a previously hypnotized witness, and I believe this brings about more equitable results than are possible under the "total exclusion" rule.