Utah Supreme Court· 4/12/1989

State v. Tuttle

Citations

780 P.2d 1203
106 Utah Adv. Rep. 6
1989 Utah LEXIS 30
1989 WL 35660

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that this court may raise the issue of standing \sug sponte at any time\
“Standing is an issue that a court can raise sua sponte at any time.”
rejecting the State’s position that the issue only concerns the admissibility of testimony from a lay eyewitness as opposed to an expert on the basis that “the hypnotically enhanced testimony given by the witness is the product of scientific intervention”
“[a]t the present time, the inherent unreliability of such testimony is well established by [case law and journal articles]. . .”
harmless error standard for nonconstitutional errors “is not as strict as the federal constitutional [harmless error] standard”
“A previously hypnotized witness may take the stand, but the witness’s testimony must be limited to his or her prehypnotic recall as it has been recorded before hypnosis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Zimmerman, Durham, Hall, Howe, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

51 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

88 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.