Court Opinion

ID: 9639177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:06:52.25536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:13.208953
License: Public Domain

BECK, Judge,
concurring:
Except for the ultimate question as to whether the pre-hypnosis recollections had been preserved, both Judge Bro-sky and President Judge Spaeth present similar analyses of the issues. Both would conclude that hypnotically-induced testimony is inadmissable. Commonwealth v. Smoyer, 505 Pa. 83, 476 A.2d 1304 (1984). Both would conclude, Judge Brosky by implication, that witnesses who were hypnotized are not competent to testify as to their pre-hypnotic recollection except where the pre-hypnotic recollection had been properly preserved. Commonwealth v. McCabe, 303 Pa.Super. 245, 449 A.2d 670 (1982). I agree with Judge Brosky’s analysis that the prehypnotic recollection has been properly preserved. Accordingly I concur.