Citation: Morgan v Sate, 537 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1989) Facts: James A. Morgan, the appellant, who at sixteen was diagnosed as organically brain-damaged and brain-impaired, murdered the elderly woman with whom he was employed to perform manual labor. Morgan is described as a teenage alcoholic, who since the age of four sniffed gasoline on a regular basis. According to medical experts, who examined Morgan on three separate occasions, Morgan was declared legally insane at the time of the murder based on the M’Naughten standard. The experts reached their opinion utilizing Morgan’s history, various psychiatric tests along with the medically accepted technique of hypnosis. The expert testimony was presented to the trial judge in the jury’s absence as well as during the penalty phase of the trial. The appellant does not deny killing the victim; the issue being decided was his sanity at the time of the murder and the exclusion of medical …show more content…
Rules: The defendant’s right to testify on his or her own behalf is restricted by a state rule to exclude post-hypnotically refreshed testimony. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S. Ct. 2704, 97 L. Ed. 2d 37 (1987) Hypnotically refreshed testimony is per se inadmissible in a criminal trial. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2n330 (1984), Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (1985), and Rodriguez v. State, 327 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1976) The danger of admitting hypnotically refreshed testimony is outweighed by the ability to prove the evidence reliable. Rock v. State, 288 Ark. 566, 573, 708 S.W.2d 78, 81 (1986) The testimony of a defendant, who submits to pretrial hypnosis, is admissible if he or she takes the stand. People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 723 P.2d 1354, 181 Cal. Rptr. 243, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S. Ct. 133, 74 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1982)