Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 29, 1981No. J279PublishedCited by 138 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

O’BRIEN, Chief Justice.

This case raises the novel issue of whether hypnotically-refreshed testimony is admissible in a criminal trial when the witness has no present recollection of the facts prior to the hypnosis. For the reasons which follow, and because of the facts peculiar to this case, we find the trial court properly exercised its discretion in suppressing the testimony of the witness in question.

On the morning of September 18, 1976, twelve-year-old Heidi Morningstar of Ambridge, Pennsylvania, was found murdered on the front lawn of an Allegheny County home. Despite…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Commonwealth v. BosurgiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. State v. HurdSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  4. State v. MacKSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. Commonwealth v. TopaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by138 opinions

  1. Rock v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. People v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State v. JohnstonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.Arizona Supreme Court · 1982
  5. People v. GuerraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984

133 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API