Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Arizona law is instructive. See State v. La Mountain, 125 Ariz. 547, 611 P.2d 551 (1980), where the court held that in a rape prosecution, the court erred in admitting hypnotically induced recall pertaining to identification; the court concluded that the error was not prejudicial since the other evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. This decision was followed by State v. Mena, 128 Ariz. 226, 624 P.2d 1274 (1981), in which the court reversed the conviction, holding that 'until hypnosis gains general acceptance in the fields of medicine and psychiatry as a method by which memories are accurately improved without undue danger of distortion, delusion or fantasy, we feel that testimony of witnesses which has been tainted by hypnosis should be excluded in criminal cases.' Id. at 231, 624 P.2d at 1279.

Hypnosis was not so easily to be put beyond us. The issue returned in 131 Ariz. 180, 644 P.2d 1266 (1982) where the court repeated that because of its unreliability and the phenomena which interfere with the right of effective cross-examination, post-hypnotic recall testimony would be inadmissible in criminal trials. The court extended the rule to the issue of competency, and ...

Register or login to access full content