Legal Opinion
People v. Hults
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 10, 1990PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Alexander, J.
We established in People v Hughes (59 NY2d 523) that posthypnotic testimony, to the extent it is affected by the prior hypnosis, is not admissible as evidence-in-chief because of its inherent unreliability. Implicit in our decision in Hughes is the conclusion that statements made during the hypnotic procedure are also inadmissible on direct examination, at least to the extent they differ from the subject’s prehypnotic statements. We hold today that such hypnotic statements are, as a general rule, also inadmissible for purposes of impeachment. *193Moreover, the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- People v. GelikkayaNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- People v. SouliaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Murphy v. Estate of VeceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- People v. DemagallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. SchreinerNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.