FORENSIC HYPNOSIS and  THE LAW   

Legal  Aspects 

UPDATED  October 2003 

                                         www.MarxHowell.com 

   I would like to express my appreciation to Jack Zimmermann who has consistently made presentations and provided legal updates to the Texas Association for Investigative Hypnosis, which is primarily for police personnel who are certified by the state of  Texas to conduct Forensic Hypnosis interviews with witnesses and victims to crimes.  

                                       CASE CITATIONS TO
         "USING HYPNOSIS TO INVESTIGATE A CRIMINAL CASE:
                                     HOW TO DO IT LEGALLY"
                                         (updated October 2003)

                                   Prepared by Jack B. Zimmermann
                                       Zimmermann & Lavine, P.C.


A .  HYPNOTIZING A WITNESS RENDERS ALL
       TESTIMONY INADMISSIBLE

Arkansas

Mills v. State, 910 S.W.2d 682 (Ark.1995).                  
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S.44, 107 S.Ct.2704, 97 L.Ed.2d
37 (1987) (stating that a criminal defendant has a right
to testify on his own behalf, even if he has been
hypnotized).


B.    ONLY PRE-HYPNOSIS RECALL IS ADMISSIBLE  

Alabama

Chamblee v. State, 527 So.2d 173 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).
Martin v. State 839 So.2nd 665 (Ala. Crim. App.2001)

Alaska

Contreras v. State, 718 P.2d 129 (Alaska 1986), overruled
on other grounds by
State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999).

Arizona

State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 644 P.2d 1266
(Ariz. 1982).
State v. Lopez, 887 P.2d 538 (Ariz. 1994).

California

People v. Hayes, 783 P.2d 719 (Cal.1989).
People v. Alcala, 842 P.2d 1192 (Cal.1992).

Connecticut

State v. Pollitt, 530 A.2d 155 (Conn.1987)

Delaware

Elliotte v. State, 515 A.2d 677 (Del.1986).

Florida

Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla.1985).
Way v. Dugger, 568 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1990).

Hawaii

State v. Moreno, 709 P.2d 103 (Haw.1985).

Illinois

People v. Zayas, 546 N.E.2d 513(Ill.1989).

Indiana

Strong v. State, 435 N.E.2d 969 (Ind.1982).

Iowa

State v. Seager, 341 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa 1983).
Odem v. State, 483 N.W.2d 17 (Iowa Ct.App.1992).

Kansas

State v. Haislip, 701 P.2d 909 (Kan.1985).

Kentucky

Rowland v. Commonwealth, 901 S.W.2d 871 (Ky.1995).

Maryland

State v. Collins, 464 A.2d 1028 (Md.1983).
Burral v. State, 724 A.2d 65 (Md.1999).

Massachusetts

Commonwealth v. Kater, 447 N.E.2d 1190 (Mass.1983).

Michigan

People v. Gonzales, 329 N.W.2d 743 (Mich. 1982).
People v. Lee, 450 N.W.2d 883 (Mich, 1990).

Minnesota

State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn.1980).
State v. Grimmett, 459 N.W.2d 515,517(Minn.Ct.App.1990).

Missouri 

State v. Blackman, 875 S.W.2nd 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Post, 901 S.W.2nd 231 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)

Nebraska

State v. Palmer, 313 N.W.2d 648 (Neb.1981).
State v. Patterson, 331 N.W.2d 500 (Neb.1983).

New York

People v. Hughes, 417 N.Y.S.2d 643 (N.Y.County Ct.1979).
People v. Gray, 545 N.Y.S.2d 945 (N.Y.App.Div.1989).

North Carolina

State v. Peoples, 319 S.E.2d 177 (N.C.1984).
State v. Annadale, 406 S.E.2d 837 (N.C.1991). 

Oklahoma  

Harmon v. State, 700 P2d 212 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985)

Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch, 436 A.2d 170 (Pa.1981).
Commonwealth v. Romanelli, 560 A.2d 1384 (Pa.1989).
    
Utah

State v. Tuttle, 780 P.2d 1203 (Utah 1989).

Virginia

Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 264 (Va.1985).
Hall v. Commonwealth, 403 S.E.2d 362 (Va.Ct.App.1991)
.
Washington

State v. Martin, 684 P.2d 651 (Wash.1984).
State v. Coe, 750 P.2d 208 (Wash.1988).

West Virginia
    
State v. Beard, 461 S.E.2d 486 (W.Va.1995).

                                       www.MarxHowell.com  

C. REQUIREMENT FOR STRICT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
     FOR POST-HYPNOSIS TESTIMONY TO BE ADMISSIBLE

Georgia

Walraven v. State, 336 S.E.2d 798 (Ga.1985).

Mississippi 

House v. State, 445 So.2d 815 (Miss.1984) 

Navada . 

Nev. Rev. Stat. 48.039

State v. Hurd, 432 A.2d 86 (N.J.1999)
State v. Choinacki, 734 A2d 324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999)

New Mexico

State v. Beachum, 643 P.2d 246 (N.M.Ct.App.1981).
State v. Hutchinson, 661 P.2d 1315 (N.M.1983).

New Jersey

State v. Hurd, 432 A.2d 86 (N.J.1981).
State v. Choinacki, 734 A.2d 324 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1999).

South Dakota

State v. Adams, 418 N.W.2d 618 (S.D.1988), aborgated on other
grounds, State v. Hofer, 512 N.W. .2d 482 (S.D. 1994)  

                                     www..MarxHowell.com

D.  CREDIBILITY AND WEIGHT TO BE DETERMINED BY  

       TRIEROF FACT FOR POST-HYPNOSIS TESTIMONY

Louisiana

State v. Wren, 425 So.2d 756 (La.1983).
State v. Broadway, 753 So.2d 801 (La.1999).

North Dakota

Statev. Brown, 337 N.W.2d 138 (N.D.1983).
Breding v. State, 584 N.W.2d 493 (N.D.1998).
  
Oregon

Statev. Jorgensen, 492 P.2d 312 (Or.1971).
State v. King, 733 P.2d 472 (Or.Ct.App.1987).

Tennessee

Statev. Glebock, 616 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981).

Wyoming

Chapman v. State, 638 P.2d 1280 (Wyo.1982).
Prime v. State, 767 P.2d 149 (Wyo.1989).

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210 (7thCir.1986) 

United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

United States v. Adams, 581 F.2d 193 (9thCir.1978) 

United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 

Bundy v. Dugger, 850F.2d1402 (11thCir.1988) 

                                     www.MarxHowell.com

E.  TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST FOR POST-HYPNOSIS
     TESTIMONY


Colorado

People v. Romero, 745 P.2d 1003 (Colo.1987).
Brooks v. People, 975 P.2d 1105 (Colo. 1999).

Idaho

State v. Iwakiri, 682 P.2d 571 (Idaho 1984).
State v. Bainbridge, 698 P.2d 335 (Idaho 1985).

Kentucky 

Roark v. Commonwealth, 90S.W.3d 24 (Ky.2002) 

Ohio

State v. Johnston, 529 N.E.2d 898 (Ohio 1988).

South Carolina

State v. Cheeseboro, 552 S.E.2d 300 (S.C.2001).

Texas

Zani v. State, 758 S.W.2d 233,243 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).
State v. Medrano,86S.W.3d 369 (Tex.App.-ElPaso 2002,pet.granted).

Wisconsin

State v. Armstrong, 329 N.W.2d 386 (Wis.1983). 

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597 (2dCir..1995).

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Harker v. Maryland, 800 F.2d 437 (4th Cir.1986) 

United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circut 

Merschv. City of Dallas, 207F.3d 732 (5thCir.2000). 

United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 

Sprynczynatyk v. General Motors, 771 F.3d 1112 (8thCir.1985)

F.  NO PRECEDENT

District of Columbia
Maine
Montana
New Hampshire
Nevada
Rhode Island
Vermont 

 It is important that you check the legal status of hypnosis in your jurisdiction
 as it may change at any time !!!!!!!!!