People v. Hughes, 68 N.Y.2d 1035 (1986)
When a witness has undergone hypnosis, pre-hypnotic recollections are admissible only if the prosecution demonstrates by clear and convincing proof that the recollections were not unduly influenced by the hypnotic sessions, requiring examination of the extent of prehypnotic recollection and potential suggestiveness of the hypnosis.
Summary
This case addresses the admissibility of a rape victim’s testimony regarding pre-hypnotic recollections after undergoing hypnosis. The Court of Appeals held that on retrial, after a prior reversal due to the improper admission of hypnotically-induced testimony, the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s pre-hypnotic recall without properly assessing whether the hypnotic procedures impermissibly tainted those recollections. Despite the error, the Court found it harmless because the victim’s testimony in the second trial did not involve the critical fact of the assailant’s identity. The Court emphasized the need for expert testimony to evaluate the suggestiveness of the hypnosis.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of first-degree rape and second-degree assault. The victim had undergone hypnosis. The initial conviction was reversed due to the trial court’s improper admission of the victim’s testimony concerning recollections induced by hypnosis. On remand, the trial court was directed to determine the admissibility of the victim’s pre-hypnotic recollections. However, on remand the trial court admitted the victim’s testimony regarding her pre-hypnotic recall without adequately assessing the potential suggestiveness of the hypnosis.
Procedural History
The initial convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree assault were reversed by the Court of Appeals in *People v. Hughes, 59 N.Y.2d 523*. The case was remanded for a hearing to determine the admissibility of the victim’s pre-hypnotic recollections. On remand, the trial court admitted the testimony, leading to a second appeal. The Appellate Division agreed that the trial court failed to comply with the Court of Appeals’ guidelines, but deemed the error harmless. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s testimony regarding her pre-hypnotic recall without considering expert testimony or other evidence on the potential suggestiveness of the hypnotic procedures employed.
Holding
No, but the error was harmless because the victim’s testimony on the second trial did not involve the critical fact of her assailant’s identity; the trial court failed to adequately assess whether the hypnotic procedures impermissibly tainted the victim’s pre-hypnotic recollections, as mandated by the prior ruling in *People v. Hughes, 59 N.Y.2d 523*.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reiterated its prior holding in *People v. Hughes, 59 N.Y.2d 523*, stating that pre-hypnotic recollections are admissible only if the prosecution demonstrates by clear and convincing proof that those recollections were not unduly influenced by the hypnotic sessions. The Court emphasized that the trial court should examine both the extent of the witness’s pre-hypnotic recollection and whether the hypnosis was so impermissibly suggestive as to require exclusion of the in-court testimony. The Court found that the trial court failed to comply with these guidelines because it admitted the victim’s testimony without considering expert testimony on the suggestiveness of the hypnotic procedures. The Court noted, “the required proof will necessarily vary from case to case.” However, despite the trial court’s error, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that the error was harmless because the victim’s testimony in the second trial did not involve the critical fact of her assailant’s identity.