A. Except as otherwise provided in title 8, a statement made by a minor who is under the age of ten years describing any sexual offense or physical abuse performed with, on or witnessed by the minor, which is not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule, is admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding if both of the following are true:
1. The court finds, in an in camera hearing, that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability.
2. Either of the following is true:
(a) The minor testifies at the proceedings.
(b) The minor is unavailable as a witness, provided that if the minor is unavailable as a witness, the statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the statement.
B. A statement shall not be admitted under this section unless the proponent of the statement makes known to the adverse party his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement sufficiently in advance of the proceedings to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases, 1984–2013 · leading case:
State v. Robinson, 735 P.2d 801 (Ariz. 1987).
State v. Robinson, 735 P.2d 801 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 50× “1986), a statutory hearsay exception, unconstitutionally infringes on this court’s rulemaking powers; (2) whether the challenged hearsay statements could have been admitted under the Arizona Rules of Evidence; and (3) whether the imposition of consecutive sentences violated A.”
State v. Allen, 755 P.2d 1153 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 30× “Thereafter, the state filed a motion to introduce the statements of the child pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1416 (The Minor Sexual Victim Testimony Act).”
State v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 719 P.2d 283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 28× “§ 13-4061, and the admissibility of her out-of-court statements under A.R.S. § 13-1416. The particular facts of this case warrant the exercise of our discretion to assume jurisdiction.”
McLaughlin v. Fahringer, 723 P.2d 92 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 11× “* V * * * * THE COURT: Isn’t there a statute [A.R.S. § 13-1416] that provides for out of court statements given by children independent of whether there is any allegation of recent fabrication or whatever? MR.”
Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990).
· cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1416 (1989); Ark.”
State v. Ault, 724 P.2d 545 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 4× “It was proper for these witnesses to testify that the victim did pick defendant as the man in her room.”
State v. Vincent, 768 P.2d 150 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The child’s out-of-court statements were admitted into evidence pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1416, the “Minor Sexual Victim Testimony Act.”
State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Article 29 of the Arizona Criminal Code (A.R.S. §§ 13-4231 to 13-4240 (Supp. 1986)), dealing with post-conviction relief, was added to the criminal code in 1984.”
State v. Robinson, 735 P.2d 798 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 13-1416 is unconstitutional and allows in evidence otherwise inadmissible hearsay statements made by a witness under ten years of age.”
Snowden v. State, 846 A.2d 36 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004).
“Code § 15-25-32 (2003); Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-1416 (2003); Cal Evid.”
Cassidy v. State, 536 A.2d 666 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988).
“37, § 704-6(4)(c) (SmithHurd 1985); Indiana: Ind.Code § 35-37-4-6 (1985); Iowa: Iowa Code Ann.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1416(A) — 3 cases
State v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 719 P.2d 283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“§ 13-4061, and the admissibility of her out-of-court statements under A.R.S. § 13-1416. The particular facts of this case warrant the exercise of our discretion to assume jurisdiction.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1416(A)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 719 P.2d 283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“§ 13-4061, and the admissibility of her out-of-court statements under A.R.S. § 13-1416. The particular facts of this case warrant the exercise of our discretion to assume jurisdiction.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1416(A)(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 719 P.2d 283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“§ 13-4061, and the admissibility of her out-of-court statements under A.R.S. § 13-1416. The particular facts of this case warrant the exercise of our discretion to assume jurisdiction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.