# State v. Martin

> Washington Supreme Court · June 7, 1984 · 101 Wash. 2d 713

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629115

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. David Martin, Petitioner
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 7, 1984
- **Citations:** 101 Wash. 2d 713; 684 P.2d 651; 1984 Wash. LEXIS 1679
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stafford
- **Judges:** Dore, Stafford, Brachtenbach, Dolliver, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 67 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629115

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding same regarding hypnosis evidence
- rejecting hypnotically induced testimony

## Opinion text

Stafford, J.
(concurring) — I concur. I am concerned, however, that there exists a real danger in admitting testimony of prehypnotic memory absent strong corroboration.
The majority attempts to distinguish between prehypnotic and posthypnotic memory, finding the witness' recollection of only the former admissible. A previously hypnotized witness may be unable to distinguish between prehypnotic memory and posthypnotic confabulations, however. See Beaver, Memory Restored or Confabulated by Hypnosis— Is it Competent?, 6 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 155 , 199-200 (1983). As a result, the witness may be incompetent to testify.
A previously hypnotized witness does not lack competency because of a failure to understand the duty to tell the truth. See People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 67 , 641 P.2d 775 , 181 Cal. Rptr. 243, 273 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 74 *725 L. Ed. 2d 114 , 103 S. Ct. 133 (1982). Rather, the witness may be incompetent due to an inability to know what the truth is. The witness may sincerely believe that facts recalled are from prehypnotic memory. Yet, because the witness was once hypnotized, this sincere belief may be completely erroneous. Further, cross examination may be ineffective due to the witness' subjective conviction in the truth of his testimony. See Beaver, at 200-01. Absent some independent verification that the witness' testimony consists of prehypnotic memory, the propriety of its admission is questionable.
Williams, C.J., and Pearson, J., concur with Stafford, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629115. Public record. Not legal advice.