Creamer v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28639,28639 |
| Parties | James Edward CREAMER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
McDonald & Dupree, Hylton B. Dupree, Jr., Duard R. McDonald, James D. Stokes, Bruce M. Edenfield, Marietta, for appellant.
George Darden, Dist. Atty., Richard L. Moore, Asst. Dist. Atty., Ben F. Smith, Marietta, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., William F. Bartee, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John B. Ballard, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and two counts of felony murder arising from the deaths of Dr. Warren B. Matthews and Dr. Rozina Matthews. He was sentenced to four consecutive life terms. He appeals. Held:
1. We conclude from a review of the entire record that the verdicts are supported by the evidence and that the testimony of the alleged accomplice was sufficiently corroborated.
2. The appellant contends that 'the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the grounds that the court erred in its in camera inspection of the state's file pursuant to the appellant's motion based on the rule of Brady v. Maryland, (373 U.S. 83 (83 S.C(t.) 1194, 10 L.E(d.)2d 215)) to require the state to further disclose to the trial court, the files available to the state to wit: all law enforcement files.'
The record in this case shows that the trial court did conduct an in camera inspection of the file of the district attorney and did reveal to the defense all exculpatory matter contained therein.
There is no merit in this contention of the appellant.
3. The appellant contends that, 'the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial for the reason that the court erred in not excluding the testimony of Debbie Kidd due to the fact that said testimony was incompetent and therefore, inadmissible for the reason that said witness' testimony was tainted by virtue of hypnotic trances under the control of Dr. Edwin P. Hall, an applied psychologist; that the witness' testimony was hearsay; that the State did not satisfy the due process requirements guaranteed appellant by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by properly disclosing to appellant before trial of Debbie Kidd's being put under hypnotic tranes; that such failure to disclose further denied appellant of effective benefit of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because of the nature of hypnosis and because of the injection into the trial of an as yet unknown and undeveloped science, the determination of the nature, results and reliability of which is in the experimental stage, and so recognized by competent medical authorities; and that because of the court's failure to order disclosure, even after exhaustive written request was made by appellant, of all information under state control and direction that had a material effect of the reliability of Debbie Ann Kidd, the case should be remanded for a new trial.'
The appellant also contends that, 'the court erred in not excluding the testimony of Debbie Kidd due to the fact that said testimony was incompetent and therefore, inadmissible for the reason that said witness was tainted by virtue of hypnotic trances and seances under the control of Dr. Edwin P. Hall, an applied psychologist.'
For the facts surrounding Debra Ann Kidd's sessions with Dr. Edwin P. Hall, see Emmett v. State, 232 Ga. 110, 205 S.E.2d 231, Division 3. As held therein we agree with appellant that the reliability of hypnosis has not been established and statements made while the witness was in a trance are inadmissible. We do not agree, however, that the hypnotic sessions tainted Kidd's testimony and rendered it inadmissible. The evidence discloses that she related to Cobb County authorities the principal facts and details of the crimes prior to her sessions with Dr. Hall. Counsel are experienced advocates and defended appellant vigorously and competency. Debra Ann Kidd and Dr. Hall were cross examined extensively and thoroughly. The fact that Kidd had been placed under hypnosis by Dr. Hall and the purpose therefor were made clear to the jury. Nor do we find that the refusal to disclose to appellant the statements made to Dr. Hall by Debra Ann Kidd during the hypnotic sessions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Valdez
...United States v. Narciso, 446 F.Supp. 252 (E.D.Mich.1977); Clark v. State, 379 So.2d 372 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979); Creamer v. State, 232 Ga. 136, 205 S.E.2d 240 (1974); State v. McQueen, 295 N.C. 96, 244 S.E.2d 414 (1978); State v. Glebock, 616 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981); Chapman v. Stat......
-
State v. Peoples, 106PA83
...holding that a witness's testimony having been refreshed by hypnosis goes only to credibility and not admissibility. Creamer v. State, 232 Ga. 136, 205 S.E.2d 240 (1974); People v. Smrekar, 68 Ill.App.3d 379, 24 Ill.Dec. 707, 385 N.E.2d 848 (1979); Pearson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 468 (Ind.1982......
-
Collier v. State
...their being subjected to hypnosis. Such an order is overly broad. Emmett v. State, 232 Ga. 110, 205 S.E.2d 231 (1974); Creamer v. State, 232 Ga. 136, 205 S.E.2d 240 (1974). At the conclusion of the district attorney's examination of the state's first witness, Darlene Hurt, the trial court r......
-
Blake v. Zant
...crime. In fact, it appears that only three of these cases involved victims who were attacked in their homes. Creamer v. State, 232 Ga. 136, 137, 205 S.E.2d 240 (1974); Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 182 S.E.2d 779 (1971); Allen v. State, 231 Ga. 17, 200 S.E.2d 106 (1973). Furthermore, only one......