A. The recording of an oral statement of a minor made before a proceeding begins is admissible into evidence if all of the following are true:
1. No attorney for either party was present when the statement was made.
2. The recording is both visual and aural and is recorded on film or videotape or by other electronic means.
3. Every voice on the recording is identified.
4. The person conducting the interview of the minor in the recording is present at the proceeding and available to testify or be cross-examined by either party.
5. The defendant or the attorney for the defendant is afforded an opportunity to view the recording before it is offered into evidence.
6. The minor is available to testify.
7. The recording equipment was capable of making an accurate recording, the operator of the equipment was competent and the recording is accurate and has not been altered.
8. The statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the minor to make a particular statement.
B. If the electronic recording of the oral statement of a minor is admitted into evidence under this section, either party may call the minor to testify and the opposing party may cross-examine the minor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1986–2019 · leading case:
State v. Taylor, 2 P.3d 674 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Taylor, 2 P.3d 674 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 39× “He contends that A.R.S. § 13-4252, a statutory hearsay exception concerning the admissibility of prior recorded statements by minors, [1] is unconstitutional and that the trial court also erred in admitting, as an excited utterance, a statement the victim made to her stepmother.”
Chambers v. State, 726 P.2d 1269 (Wyo. 1986).
· cites it 2× “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4252 (1985 Cum.”
Miller v. State, 517 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. 1987).
“Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3511 (1986 Supp.); Fla.Stat.”
State v. Farnsworth, 389 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Unless one can conjure any legislative logic in protecting police officers from the rigors of live, in-court testimony, see A.R.S. §§ 13-4252, 13-4253, these identical definitions were manifestly designed to refer to a subset of actual child victims, namely “per-sonls] under…”
Joshua W. Cole v. State of Alaska, 452 P.3d 704 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
“In this case, the State did notify the defense of the identities of the observers, and we therefore need not decide the precise contours of when and how the identity of observers must be disclosed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4252(A) — 1 case
State v. Taylor, 2 P.3d 674 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“He contends that A.R.S. § 13-4252, a statutory hearsay exception concerning the admissibility of prior recorded statements by minors, [1] is unconstitutional and that the trial court also erred in admitting, as an excited utterance, a statement the victim made to her stepmother.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4252(A)(6) — 1 case
State v. Taylor, 2 P.3d 674 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“He contends that A.R.S. § 13-4252, a statutory hearsay exception concerning the admissibility of prior recorded statements by minors, [1] is unconstitutional and that the trial court also erred in admitting, as an excited utterance, a statement the victim made to her stepmother.”
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.