State v. Hurd

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Citation432 A.2d 86,86 N.J. 525
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul HURD, Defendant-Respondent.
Decision Date14 July 1981

Robert D. Clarke, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellant (David Linett, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney).

Richard S. Rebeck, Middlesex County Prosecutor, for amicus curiae County Prosecutors' Ass'n of N.J. (Roger W. Breslin, Jr., Prosecutor, attorney; William F. Lamb, Asst. Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Leo Kaplowitz, Linden, for defendant-respondent (Kaplowitz & Wise, Linden, attorneys).

Cary B. Cheifetz, Lyndhurst, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae International Ass'n for Forensic Hypnosis (Emolo & Cheifetz, Lyndhurst, attorneys; Henry B. Rothblatt, New York City, a member of the New York bar, of counsel).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

PASHMAN, J.

This case presents the question, previously undecided in this State, whether the testimony of a witness who has undergone hypnosis to refresh her recollection is admissible in a criminal trial and, if so, in what circumstances. Although we recognize the problems raised by this use of hypnosis, we hold that, subject to strict safeguards to ensure the reliability of the hypnotic procedure, such testimony is admissible. In this case, we find that the State has failed to demonstrate the reliability of the hypnotic procedures it used. Therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court suppressing the challenged testimony.

I

At approximately 5:45 a. m. on June 22, 1978, Jane Sell was attacked and stabbed repeatedly while sleeping in the bedroom of her ground floor apartment. Her assailant apparently did not intend to rob her or commit a sexual assault. She ultimately escaped her attacker, but only after sustaining many knife wounds.

Mrs. Sell lived in the apartment with her husband, David Sell, and her three sons, two of whom are children from a previous marriage with the defendant, Paul Hurd. Although at the time of the assault she had been divorced from the defendant for seven years, they continued to disagree over the disposition of jointly owned property and visitation rights. The most recent discussion had been a telephone conversation between David Sell and the defendant on the evening before the assault.

On that evening, David Sell had fallen asleep in the living room. He testified that he was awakened by his wife's screams and rushed to her aid. He met her in the hallway outside their bedroom. She told him that she had been stabbed by someone through the window which was at ground level. Without looking to see if the assailant was still there, he telephoned the police for help.

Immediately after the attack, Mrs. Sell was either unable or unwilling to describe her assailant. In the hospital emergency room a few hours after she arrived, she asked the police to "check out" her former husband, the defendant, and to watch her children, but she did not identify the defendant as the attacker.

The investigation by the police department and prosecutor's office centered on two suspects, David Sell and the defendant. Because Mrs. Sell stated that she was still unable to identify her attacker after she left the hospital on July 3, the prosecutor's office suggested that she visit a psychiatrist who might be able to enhance her recollection of the incident through hypnosis. Mrs. Sell agreed. On July 14, 1978, two officers from the prosecutor's office, Detective Marilyn Pierangeli and Lt. Laurence VanWinkle, drove Mrs. Sell and her husband to the New York City office of Dr. Herbert Spiegel. Besides Dr. Spiegel and Mrs. Sell, the only people present during the hypnotic session were the two officers and a medical student; David Sell waited outside the room.

Dr. Spiegel first conducted some tests to determine whether Mrs. Sell was capable of undergoing hypnosis. Once the doctor was satisfied that Mrs. Sell was hypnotizable, a tape recorder was turned on and the interview began. Before subjecting her to hypnosis, Dr. Spiegel questioned Mrs. Sell concerning her memory of the event and learned that she had images of a person standing near the dresser in her bedroom and a person leaning in the window. She also knew the name of one of the suspects in the case, but did not reveal which one. Finally, Dr. Spiegel instructed Mrs. Sell that while she was in a trance she should respond to questions from the officers as well as to his questions.

After this brief interview, the doctor induced hypnosis. Mrs. Sell began to relive the attack. In response to Dr. Spiegel's questions she described various facial features of her assailant and his clothing. Suddenly she began to cry hysterically. At this point Detective Pierangeli continued the questioning: "Jane, I want you to think very, very hard of what you are seeing right now. It's up to you to help me. It is up to you now to describe for me what you see. Is it somebody that you know, Jane?" Mrs. Sell answered, "Yes." "Is it David, Jane?" "No," Mrs. Sell cried. "Is it Paul?" "Yes," Mrs. Sell responded emotionally.

After Mrs. Sell was brought out of the trance and into a post-hypnotic state, she expressed mistrust "about her thinking." Dr. Spiegel and Detective Pierangeli in effect encouraged her to accept the identification she had made. They explained to her that unless she made an identification, the defendant would remain free to attack her again, possibly leaving her children without a mother. They also tried to convince her to make an identification, noting that she was indirectly implicating David Sell, who remained a suspect, by not identifying her assailant. Even after they left Dr. Spiegel's office, Detective Pierangeli continued the encouragement during dinner.

Six days later, on July 20, 1978, Jane Sell came to the North Plainfield Police Department and gave a statement identifying Paul Hurd as her attacker. On the basis of this statement, defendant was indicted and charged with assault with intent to kill, atrocious assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a dangerous knife, and breaking and entry with intent to assault. Before the jury selection, defendant moved to suppress the proposed in-court identification by Mrs. Sell. He argued that testimony refreshed through the use of hypnosis is per se inadmissible because hypnosis fails to satisfy the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence, see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), according to which evidence derived through a scientific procedure may be introduced if it is generally accepted that such procedures yield reasonably reliable results. Even if such testimony is not per se inadmissible, he argued in the alternative, the hypnotic procedure in this case was so tainted by coercion and suggestion as to render the resulting identification inadmissible because it was likely to result in irreparable misidentification. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972).

After hearing lengthy expert testimony concerning the reliability of hypnosis as a means of refreshing recollection and the likely effect of hypnosis on Mrs. Sell, 1 the trial court suppressed the proposed identification. 173 N.J.Super. 333, 414 A.2d 291 (Law Div.1980). In a thoughtful opinion, it applied the Frye test for scientific evidence and declined to hold that hypnotically refreshed testimony is per se inadmissible. Nevertheless, it found that "the potential for the production of fantasy and confabulation during a hypnotic exercise militates against the automatic admissibility of hypnotically-induced recall until an acceptable level of reliability of that recall is established." Id. at 362, 414 A.2d 291. The court established a two-part test for admissibility. First, it adopted procedural safeguards suggested by Dr. Martin Orne, an expert witness for the defense:

(1) The hypnotic session should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis.

(2) The qualified professional conducting the hypnotic session should be independent of and not responsible to the prosecutor, investigator or the defense.

(3) Any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel prior to the hypnotic session must be in written form so that subsequently the extent of the information the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined.

(4) Before induction of hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them, carefully avoiding adding any new elements to the witness' description of the events.

(5) All contacts between the hypnotist and the subject should be recorded so that a permanent record is available for comparison and study to establish that the witness has not received information or suggestion which might later be reported as having been first described by the subject during hypnosis. Videotape should be employed if possible, but should not be mandatory.

(6) Only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, including the pre-hypnotic testing and post-hypnotic interview.

(Id. at 363, 414 A.2d 291)

The court imposed on the State the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it had complied with these standards. Id. at 365, 414 A.2d 291. If these procedures had been followed, the court held that the State would then have the additional burden of showing that "there was no impermissibly suggestive or coercive conduct by the hypnotist and law enforcement personnel connected with the hypnotic exercise," id. at 364, 414 A.2d 291, again by clear and convincing evidence, id. at 369, 414 A.2d 291. Applying these standards to the present case, the court found that the State had failed to satisfy the procedural safeguards and that Dr. Spiegel and law enforcement personnel had exerted pressure on Mrs. Sell to induce her to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
177 cases
  • People v. Guerra
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 21, 1984
    ...... 1 Judy S. testified she was 20 years old and worked as a supermarket cashier while attending state college. On February 25, 1979, she finished her shift at the market at midnight, watched a television program at a fellow worker's house, then ...         Of particular interest is Dr. Orne's repudiation of the approach taken in his name in the well-known decision of State v. Hurd (1981) 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86. In Hurd the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the [37 Cal.3d 424] posthypnotic testimony of an eyewitness would ......
  • People v. Shirley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 11, 1982
    ...... He dressed and waited for the latter to arrive, feeling that Catherine "was just in a wrong state of mind to be left alone." After some minutes Mickie entered carrying a six-pack of beer under her arm, and defendant left. .         [31 ... 20 .         In subsequent cases the required safeguards became very elaborate indeed. Thus in State v. Hurd (1981) 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86, the eyewitness-victim was unable or unwilling to identify the defendant as her assailant, and did so only after ......
  • State v. Pollitt
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 25, 1987
    ......General Motors Corporation, 771 F.2d 1112, 1122-23 (8th Cir.1985); House v. State, 445 [205 Conn. 80] So.2d 815, 826-27 (Miss.1984); State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981); State v. Weston, 16 Ohio App.3d 279, 287, 475 N.E.2d 805 (1984). .         It is clear that the procedural safeguards outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Rock for reducing any unreliability of posthypnosis testimony were not adhered to in the ......
  • U.S. v. Valdez
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 3, 1984
    ...... No one other than Jackson identified him as having approached the hiding place or the first drop site. . II. .         Numerous state courts admit testimony influenced by previous hypnosis, viewing the procedure as merely affecting credibility. 1 These courts consider the ...Adams, 581 F.2d 193 (9th Cir.1978) (procedural safeguards must be employed); State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981); Brown v. State, 426 So.2d 76 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); People v. Smrekar, 68 Ill.App.3d 379, 24 Ill.Dec. 707, 385 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • July 31, 2017
    ...defendant’s right to testify in her own behalf; see also State v. Woodin , 539 So.2d 645 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1989). State v. Hurd , 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981). The Frye test is applicable to the use of hypnosis to refresh memory. Hypnotically refreshed testimony may be admitted , howeve......
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...defendant’s right to testify in her own behalf; see also State v. Woodin , 539 So.2d 645 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1989). State v. Hurd , 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981). The Frye test is applicable to the use of hypnosis to refresh memory. Hypnotically refreshed testimony may be admitted , howeve......
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • July 31, 2014
    ...defendant’s right to testify in her own behalf; see also State v. Woodfin , 539 So.2d 645 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1989). State v. Hurd , 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981). The Frye test is applicable to the use of hypnosis to refresh memory. Hypnotically refreshed testimony may be admitted , howev......
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2015 Contents
    • July 31, 2015
    ...defendant’s right to testify in her own behalf; see also State v. Woodfin , 539 So.2d 645 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1989). State v. Hurd , 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981). The Frye test is applicable to the use of hypnosis to refresh memory. Hypnotically refreshed testimony may be admitted , howev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT