A. The court, on motion of the prosecution, may order that the testimony of the minor be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed circuit equipment in the courtroom to be viewed by the court and the finder of fact in the proceeding. Only the attorneys for the defendant and for the state, persons necessary to operate the equipment and any person whose presence would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the minor may be present in the room with the minor during his testimony. Only the attorneys may question the minor. The persons operating the equipment shall be confined to an adjacent room or behind a screen or mirror that permits them to see and hear the minor during his testimony but does not permit the minor to see or hear them. The court shall permit the defendant to observe and hear the testimony of the minor in person but shall ensure that the minor cannot hear or see the defendant.
B. The court, on motion of the prosecution, may order that the testimony of the minor be taken outside the courtroom and be recorded for showing in the courtroom before the court and the finder of fact in the proceeding. Only those persons permitted to be present at the taking of testimony under subsection A may be present during the taking of the minor's testimony, and the persons operating the equipment shall be confined from the minor's sight and hearing as provided by subsection A. The court shall permit the defendant to observe and hear the testimony of the minor in person but shall ensure that the minor cannot hear or see the defendant. The court shall also ensure that:
1. The recording is both visual and aural and is recorded on film or videotape or by other electronic means.
2. The recording equipment was capable of making an accurate recording, the operator was competent and the recording is accurate and is not altered.
3. Each voice on the recording is identified.
4. Each party is afforded an opportunity to view the recording before it is shown in the courtroom.
C. If the court orders the testimony of a minor to be taken pursuant to this section, the minor shall not be required to testify in court at the proceeding for which the testimony was taken.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
State v. Vincent, 768 P.2d 150 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Vincent, 768 P.2d 150 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 26× “He argues that A.R.S. § 13-4253, the authorizing statute, was unconstitutional both as applied and on its face.”
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
· cites it 2× “1989); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4253 (1989); Conn.”
State v. Wilhite, 772 P.2d 582 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “Instead, upon motion by the state, their testimony was videotaped and presented to the jury pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4253. That statute provides in pertinent part: B.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 371 P.3d 642 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “This is consistent with at least ten other states whose statutorily crafted accommodations for minor victims of sexual crimes are similar to AR.S. § 13-4253 and require clear *318 and convincing evidence of harm be proffered by the State to establish the necessity of an…”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
· cites it 4× “§ 43-2036 (Michie 1985); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4253 (B) (West 1986); Cal.”
State v. Taylor, 2 P.3d 674 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “NOTES [1] For purposes of this statute, a minor is "a person under fifteen years of age or a person who has a developmental disability as defined in [A.”
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Padilla, 349 P.3d 1100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “¶ 12 This procedure — restricting cross-examination of child witnesses only upon a ease-specific showing that such a restriction is necessary — is nothing new.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 371 P.3d 660 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “17, 2016) (concluding the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence of an individualized and case-specific need for an accommodation applied to minor victim witnesses under A.R.S. § 13-4253 (2010)); cf. Rogerson, 855 N.”
State v. Vess, 756 P.2d 333 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “The prosecutor moved, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4253(A), that the testimony of the alleged victim be taken in another room and transmitted by closed circuit television to the courtroom for the jury to view.”
State v. Eaton, 769 P.2d 1157 (Kan. 1989).
· cites it 2× ““We find no difficulty in upholding A.R.S. § 13-4253 on this ground. Although it does not explicitly require a finding of necessity, the statute implicitly does so.”
State v. Cooper, 353 S.E.2d 451 (S.C. 1987).
· cites it 2× “§ 43-2036 (1985); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4253 (B) (1986); Cal.”
Miller v. State, 517 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. 1987).
“Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-4253(A) (1986 Supp.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4253(A) — 5 cases
State v. Vincent, 768 P.2d 150 (Ariz. 1989).
“He argues that A.R.S. § 13-4253, the authorizing statute, was unconstitutional both as applied and on its face.”
State v. Vess, 756 P.2d 333 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“The prosecutor moved, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4253(A), that the testimony of the alleged victim be taken in another room and transmitted by closed circuit television to the courtroom for the jury to view.”
Miller v. State, 517 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. 1987).
“Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-4253(A) (1986 Supp.”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
“§ 43-2036 (Michie 1985); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4253 (B) (West 1986); Cal.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 371 P.3d 642 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“This is consistent with at least ten other states whose statutorily crafted accommodations for minor victims of sexual crimes are similar to AR.S. § 13-4253 and require clear *318 and convincing evidence of harm be proffered by the State to establish the necessity of an…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4253(B) — 3 cases
State v. Vincent, 768 P.2d 150 (Ariz. 1989).
“He argues that A.R.S. § 13-4253, the authorizing statute, was unconstitutional both as applied and on its face.”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
“§ 43-2036 (Michie 1985); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4253 (B) (West 1986); Cal.”
State v. Eaton, 769 P.2d 1157 (Kan. 1989).
““We find no difficulty in upholding A.R.S. § 13-4253 on this ground. Although it does not explicitly require a finding of necessity, the statute implicitly does so.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4253(a) — 1 case
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.