Robert A. Chapman, Appellant (defendant) v. the State of Wyoming, Appellee (plaintiff)

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Robert Chapman's burglary conviction, holding that testimony of a witness whose memory was refreshed through pretrial hypnosis is admissible, with its reliability going to credibility rather than competency. The court declined to adopt the six procedural safeguards proposed in State v. Hurd as mandatory foundation requirements, finding too many variables in hypnosis to mandate them. It further held that the inaudible videotapes of the hypnotic sessions did not deprive Chapman of effective assistance of counsel, since he had adequate alternative means to explore what transpired. Finally, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present a jailhouse-confession witness in rebuttal rather than in its case in chief. Justice Brown, dissenting, joined by Chief Justice Rose, would have reversed and remanded for a new trial, contending the hypnotically enhanced testimony was unreliable given the hypnotist's lack of qualifications and the total absence of procedural safeguards.