People v. Hults, 76 N.Y.2d 190 (1990)

Hypnotic statements are generally inadmissible for impeachment purposes because their inherent unreliability outweighs their probative value in testing a witness’s truthfulness.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of sodomy. The complainant had undergone hypnosis as part of the police investigation. Defendant sought to impeach the complainant’s trial testimony with inconsistent statements she made while under hypnosis, specifically regarding the name on the assailant’s shirt. The trial court disallowed this. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that statements made during hypnosis are generally inadmissible for impeachment due to their inherent unreliability. Furthermore, a defendant who argues the unreliability of hypnotic statements cannot then introduce those statements for impeachment purposes.

Facts

The complainant accepted a ride from the defendant, who she later identified as wearing a blue Exxon uniform. During the ride, the defendant drove to an empty parking lot and sodomized her at knifepoint. The complainant provided details about the defendant and his car to the police. Three months later, the defendant was arrested in a similar car while wearing a blue shirt with an Exxon patch. The complainant identified the defendant in a lineup. Critically, the complainant underwent hypnosis as part of the police investigation three weeks after the crime.

Procedural History

Defendant was convicted of sodomy in the first degree. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial on other grounds but noted that the defendant could not use the complainant’s hypnotic statements for impeachment at the new trial. The defendant’s subsequent motion for a Hughes-Tunstall hearing was denied. After a second trial, defendant was again convicted of sodomy. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a Hughes-Tunstall hearing.
2. Whether precluding the defendant’s use of the complainant’s hypnotic statements for impeachment unconstitutionally restricted his right to cross-examination.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant failed to show good cause for his failure to bring the motion in a timely manner.
2. No, because the state may constitutionally exclude hypnotic statements demonstrated to be unreliable, and the defendant conceded the unreliability of the complainant’s hypnotic statements.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals first addressed the Hughes-Tunstall hearing, finding the motion untimely. On the main issue, the Court extended the rule in People v. Hughes, which held posthypnotic testimony inadmissible as direct evidence due to its unreliability, to also preclude the use of hypnotic statements for impeachment. The Court reasoned that the dangers of hypnosis – suggestion and confabulation – affect all hypnotic statements, regardless of whether they are introduced as evidence-in-chief or for impeachment.

The Court acknowledged the importance of cross-examination but distinguished hypnotic statements from other types of prior inconsistent statements. Unlike voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda, which can be used for impeachment because they are deemed trustworthy, hypnotic statements may be the product of suggestion or confabulation and therefore not fairly the witness’s own. As such, “because of the statement’s unreliability, the inconsistency simply is not probative of the truth or falsity of the witness’ subsequent trial testimony.”

The Court recognized the Supreme Court’s decision in Rock v. Arkansas, which held that a State’s per se rule prohibiting posthypnotic testimony could not be applied to criminal defendants testifying in their own defense without considering indicia of reliability. However, the Court distinguished the case, noting that the defendant in this case conceded the unreliability of the complainant’s hypnotic statements. Having argued that the statements were unreliable due to the suggestiveness of hypnosis, the defendant could not then introduce those same statements for impeachment purposes. In essence, he was estopped from taking inconsistent positions.