interpreting Article 14.01 in considering the legality of a warrantless arrest made in Texas for a person in possession of stolen property
How later courts described this case
- interpreting Article 14.01 in considering the legality of a warrantless arrest made in Texas for a person in possession of stolen property
- rejection of hypnosis to refresh a witness’ recollection
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Clinton, J.,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result. I agree that in the present state of informed knowledge the use of hypnosis as a “truth” determining device is in grave doubt. In this record the only evidence on that question indicates that it is not a reliable device for resurrecting hidden factual recollections of a witness. The State itself offered no testimony at all to establish the reliability of the procedure. I agree that the procedure should not be used in any future case unless reliability has been *219 established and an appropriate foundation laid.
I am uncertain as to the extent to which it will restrict the use of the hypnotized witness’ testimony on the retrial of this case. The opinion excludes testimony which is the “subject matter” of the pretrial hypnotic interview. The term “subject matter” is not defined and the opinion offers no guidance to the trial court as to what it is to do on remand.
If, for example, on remand it can be reliably determined what the witness Monica Zimmerman remembered previous to and independently of the hypnotic session, then that testimony, in my judgment, would be admissible. If it cannot be reliably determined, then all testimony concerning the “subject matter” of the hypnotic interview must be barred.
Boslaugh and Hastings, JJ., join in this concurrence.