## Facts

- Ronald W. Greenfield (age 17) worked with Mary Frances Jordan (age 21), who drove him home from work around 12:30 a.m.
- Greenfield testified he had used heroin and psilocybin earlier that evening and experienced a “falling sensation,” followed by a memory gap.
- Greenfield claimed he next remembered lying on the ground about 15 feet from the car, saw someone running away, and then saw Jordan motionless and bloody in the driver’s seat.
- He retrieved his pocketknife from the car’s floor, noticed his hand was cut, and fled, believing he “must have killed” Jordan.
- Police arrested Greenfield a few hours later at a hospital where he sought treatment; police testified Greenfield confessed he stabbed Jordan with the pocketknife found in his possession.
- The defense presented psychiatric testimony (Dr. Kenneth Locke) that Greenfield was unconscious at the time of the stabbing; Locke had hypnotized Greenfield to attempt to improve recall.
- The trial court permitted Locke’s opinion in general terms but excluded detailed testimony about statements made under hypnosis and refused to allow a renewed hypnosis attempt during a trial recess.
- A jury convicted Greenfield of second-degree murder and he was sentenced to twenty years; he appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, denial of a venue change, and admission of clothing seized at the jail without a warrant.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by limiting the defense psychiatrist’s detailed testimony offered to support his opinion that Greenfield was unconscious during the homicide.
2. Whether hypnosis-based evidence was admissible, either through testimony about statements made under hypnosis or by allowing hypnosis during trial to refresh memory.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a change of venue based on pretrial publicity, including reports of a confession.
4. Whether police could seize Greenfield’s clothing without a warrant shortly after arrest and confinement and introduce it at trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction.
- The court found no reversible error in limiting detailed expert-basis testimony where the opinion was admitted and no proffer showed what excluded details would add.
- The court held hypnosis-derived evidence is inadmissible and upheld exclusion of hypnotic statements and denial of an additional hypnosis session.
- The court upheld denial of a venue change because the defendant did not show inability to obtain a fair trial; voir dire did not show juror prejudice.
- The court held the warrantless seizure of clothing shortly after lawful arrest and confinement was reasonable and the clothing was admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Where not self-induced, unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide; self-induced unconsciousness affects only the grade of the offense.
- Trial courts have discretion to limit cumulative or marginally probative detail supporting expert opinions; appellate review is constrained where the proponent makes no proffer of excluded evidence.
- Hypnotic evidence is inadmissible, whether offered through in-court testimony under hypnosis or through another witness recounting statements made during a hypnotic trance.
- A defendant bears the burden to show by affirmative evidence that a fair trial cannot be obtained; a venue change is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion and assessed based on conditions at the time of trial.
- Police may seize a defendant’s clothing without a warrant shortly after lawful arrest and confinement as a reasonable incident of custody and evidentiary preservation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Greenfield’s second-degree murder conviction, holding that hypnosis-based material was categorically inadmissible, the trial judge acted within discretion in limiting expert-detail testimony and denying a venue change, and the post-arrest warrantless seizure of clothing at the jail was constitutionally reasonable and properly admitted.


Greenfield v. Commonwealth, 204 S.E.2d 414 (Va. 1974)