# State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.

> Arizona Supreme Court · May 4, 1982 · 132 Ariz. 180

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845542

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Ex Rel., Thomas E. COLLINS, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, in and for the COUNTY OF MARICOPA; The Honorable I. Sylvan Brown, Judge, Respondent, and Frank SILVA, Jr., Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 4, 1982
- **Citations:** 132 Ariz. 180; 644 P.2d 1266; 1982 Ariz. LEXIS 184
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Hays
- **Judges:** Feldman, Hays, Gordon, Holohan, Struckmeyer, Cameron
- **Cited by:** 126 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/9845542

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding witness who has been hypnotized may testify only to facts demonstrably recalled prior to hypnosis and only where certain prerequisites have been met
- applying inadmissibility of post-hypnosis testimony prospectively only

## Opinion text

HAYS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I most heartily concur with that portion of the opinion which permits a previously hypnotized witness to testify as to pre-hypnotic recall.
However, I must dissent from the balance of the opinion which, after careful and exhaustive review of the subject, holds that hypnotically induced testimony may not be introduced in evidence. It is not necessary to adopt a per se inadmissible rule. Certainly, the ingenuity of our system can find safeguards which protect against the introduction of palpably unreliable testimony. Illustrative of this, we refer to the standards adopted in State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525 , 432 A.2d 86 (1981), with an additional requirement that only hypnotically induced testimony which is corroborated by other independent evidence may be introduced. To totally slam the door on all hypnotically induced testimony, whether corroborated or not, I find to be unnecessary. On this issue I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845542. Public record. Not legal advice.