Court Opinion

ID: 9845542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:24:00.973178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:13.298963
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I most heartily concur with that portion of the opinion which permits a previously hypnotized witness to testify as to pre-hypnotic recall.
However, I must dissent from the balance of the opinion which, after careful and exhaustive review of the subject, holds that hypnotically induced testimony may not be introduced in evidence. It is not necessary to adopt a per se inadmissible rule. Certainly, the ingenuity of our system can find safeguards which protect against the introduction of palpably unreliable testimony. Illustrative of this, we refer to the standards adopted in State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981), with an additional requirement that only hypnotically induced testimony which is corroborated by other independent evidence may be introduced. To totally slam the door on all hypnotically induced testimony, whether corroborated or not, I find to be unnecessary. On this issue I dissent.