State v. Moore
902 A.2d 1212 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The hypnotically refreshed testimony of a witness in a criminal trial is generally inadmissible because it is not considered scientifically reliable and does not meet the general acceptance standard for the admission of scientific evidence.
Facts:
- On January 14, 1986, an intruder entered M.A.'s home at night, demanded money, and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.
- The attacker told M.A. not to look at him, and she later told police the room was dark and she only got a brief glimpse of his face.
- Initially, M.A. described her attacker as a medium-build African-American man with a short beard, but she was unable to provide enough detail for a composite sketch.
- M.A. suggested undergoing hypnosis to help her remember the attacker's face in more detail.
- Before the hypnosis session, M.A. stated that she was not wearing her contact lenses during the assault, which made her vision blurry for objects a few feet away.
- During the session on January 30, 1986, the psychologist, Dr. Samuel Babcock, told M.A. that she would remember her assailant’s face “crystal clear, very clearly.”
- After hypnosis, M.A. recalled new details, including that her assailant wore a tan suede jacket, and expressed much greater confidence in her memory.
- A few days after the session, M.A. identified Clarence Moore from a photo array and subsequently identified him in two more arrays; Moore was the only individual common to all three.
Procedural Posture:
- An Atlantic County grand jury indicted Clarence Moore for burglary, robbery, and aggravated sexual assault.
- The trial court ruled that the victim's hypnotically refreshed testimony was admissible under the standard set in State v. Hurd.
- A jury convicted Moore on all counts, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
- After this Court denied certification, Moore's conviction was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a federal habeas corpus proceeding due to prosecutorial misconduct.
- When the State prepared to retry Moore, the defense moved to exclude the hypnotically assisted testimony, challenging the validity of the Hurd precedent.
- The Appellate Division ordered the trial court to conduct a plenary hearing on the scientific reliability of hypnotically refreshed testimony.
- This Court granted Moore's petition for certification, remanded the case for the hearing to be conducted, and retained jurisdiction to decide the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the hypnotically refreshed testimony of a witness in a criminal trial generally admissible in New Jersey?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Poritz
No. The hypnotically refreshed testimony of a witness in a criminal trial is generally inadmissible because it does not meet the general acceptance standard for scientific evidence and its use subverts the truth-seeking function of the justice system. This decision overrules State v. Hurd, which previously allowed such testimony if certain procedural safeguards were met. The Court found that a scientific consensus has emerged since Hurd showing that hypnosis does not produce more accurate memories but rather instills a false confidence in the witness, making them highly susceptible to suggestion and confabulation (filling in memory gaps with fantasy). This unwarranted confidence renders effective cross-examination, a cornerstone of the adversarial system, nearly impossible. Because the procedural safeguards established in Hurd have been proven inadequate to control for these inherent dangers, and because the expert who proposed them has since repudiated them, the court adopted a rule of per se inadmissibility for witness testimony.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Rivera-Soto
This opinion concurs that the victim's testimony in this specific case is inadmissible because the hypnotic session violated the existing Hurd guidelines. However, it dissents from the majority's creation of a new, near-total ban on hypnotically refreshed testimony. The dissent argues that if a defendant's constitutional right to testify requires an exception to this ban (as established in Rock v. Arkansas), then a crime victim's parallel constitutional right to testify under the New Jersey Constitution demands an equal exception. It posits that there is no principled basis to treat a victim's hypnotically refreshed testimony differently from a defendant's, as both possess constitutional dignity.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from 25 years of precedent in New Jersey, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions that have adopted a per se rule against the admissibility of hypnotically refreshed testimony. By overturning State v. Hurd, the court signals a deep skepticism toward evidence whose reliability is not supported by a consensus in the scientific community. The ruling substantially curtails the ability of prosecutors to use testimony from witnesses who have undergone hypnosis, particularly in cases hinging on eyewitness identification with little corroborating evidence. The decision reinforces the primacy of a defendant's right to a fair trial and the ability to conduct effective cross-examination over the evidentiary value of memories retrieved through scientifically questionable methods.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Moore