Contreras v. State
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice.
When a witness is hypnotized by the police in an effort to identify a suspect, is the witness’ subsequent testimony at trial, as to facts and recollections adduced during hypnosis, admissible evidence? The court of appeals held that hypnosis did not render a witness incompetent to testify as to matters adduced during hypnosis, and that hypnotically generated statements or recollections could be admissible in evidence. State v. Contreras, 674 P.2d 792 (Alaska App.1983). The issue is now before us on petition for hearing, filed pursu*130ant to Alaska R.App.P.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Dutton v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- State v. HurdSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
- People v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Rock v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- State v. JohnstonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- People v. WilsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. CoonAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. PollittSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.