A woman was raped, then taken to the hospital. Initially, she was unable to describe either her attacker or what had happened. Eventually, she was able to identify Hughes (D) as her attacker. The police had already decided that D was a suspect. The victim's husband discovered this and questioned her further, but was unable to get a clear picture of what had happened. The victim went under hypnosis to try to identify the attacker. The psychologist wanted no details of the investigation from the police, but the victim's husband told her before hypnosis that D was a suspect. Under hypnosis, the victim identified D. The prehypnotic suggestion concerned the victim, so she underwent hypnosis again. She again identified D as her attacker. Prior to trial, D moved to suppress this identification evidence, but the court ruled that the procedures used were not clearly impermissibly suggestive. At the trial, the victim testified to the events before and after the hypnosis and identified D as the attacker. D was convicted and appealed. The decision was reversed because the hypnosis testimony was inadmissible, not generally accepted in the scientific community. However, at a new trial, the victim could still testify as to the facts recalled before hypnosis. The State (P) appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.