State v. Moore

M.A., who could not initially describe her attacker in Moore's (defendant) alleged sexual assault because it was dark and her eyes were mostly closed, later underwent hypnosis and afterward identified Moore both in a photo array and at trial. The prior governing precedent, State v. Hurd, had set out guidelines allowing hypnotically refreshed testimony with safeguards. After Moore's conviction was overturned for prosecutorial misconduct, the state supreme court directed a hearing on whether Hurd's guidelines remained scientifically valid; the trial court on remand found hypnotically refreshed testimony should be excluded and, even under Hurd's own guidelines, M.A.'s testimony didn't comply. The State appealed.