(1) When a
defendant has been charged with an unlawful sexual offense, as defined in section 18-3-411 (1),
or incest, as defined in section 18-6-301, and when the victim at the time of the commission of
the act is a child less than fifteen years of age, the prosecution may apply to the court for an
order that a deposition be taken of the victim's testimony and that the deposition be recorded and
preserved on video tape.
(2) The prosecution shall apply for the order in writing at least three days prior to the
taking of the deposition. The defendant shall receive reasonable notice of the taking of the
deposition.
(3) Upon timely receipt of the application, the court shall make a preliminary finding
regarding whether, at the time of trial, the victim is likely to be medically unavailable or
otherwise unavailable within the meaning of rule 804 (a) of the Colorado rules of evidence. Such
finding shall be based on, but not be limited to, recommendations from the child's therapist or
any other person having direct contact with the child, whose recommendations are based on
specific behavioral indicators exhibited by the child. If the court so finds, it shall order that the
deposition be taken, pursuant to rule 15 (d) of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure, and
preserved on video tape. The prosecution shall transmit the video tape to the clerk of the court in
which the action is pending.
(4) If at the time of trial the court finds that further testimony would cause the victim
emotional trauma so that the victim is medically unavailable or otherwise unavailable within the
meaning of rule 804 (a) of the Colorado rules of evidence, the court may admit the video tape of
the victim's deposition as former testimony under rule 804 (b)(1) of the Colorado rules of
evidence.
(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the admission into evidence of any videotaped
statements of children which would qualify for admission pursuant to section 13-25-129, C.R.S.,
or any other statute or rule of evidence.
Source: L. 83: Entire section added, p. 694, § 4, effective June 15. L. 91: (5) added, p.
406, § 12, effective June 6. L. 2003: (1) amended, p. 974, § 6, effective April 17.
Cross references: For provisions concerning video tape depositions of victims of child
abuse that are similar to the provisions of this section, see § 18-6-401.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases, 1987–2016 · leading case:
Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1990).
Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 28× “On appeal to the court of appeals, he challenged the admission of videotaped depositions of two child victims pursuant to section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986), and contended that his due process rights were denied by the failure of the prosecution to elect a specific incident of…”
People v. Newbrough, 803 P.2d 155 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 37× “Newbrough initially contends that the videotaped deposition was not properly admissible under section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986), the statute providing for the taking and use of videotaped depositions.”
People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 12× “During the same session of the General Assembly that enacted section 13-25-129, section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986), providing for videotape depositions of child victims of sexual offenses, was enacted.”
People v. Thomas, 770 P.2d 1324 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 25× “Prior to trial, the court granted the People’s request that the court utilize the provisions of § 18-3-413, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8B) and allow the admission of videotape depositions of the victims in lieu of trial testimony.”
People v. Ujaama, 302 P.3d 296 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “In both cases, the issue before the court was whether the admission of videotaped depositions of child victims under section 18-3-413, C.R.S.2011-in lieu of live testimony-violated the defendants' confrontation rights.”
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
· cites it 2× “1990); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-3-413 and 18-6-401.”
People v. Chavez, 779 P.2d 375 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 8× “could be taken pursuant to section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986). Defense counsel was denied the right to be present when the video depositions were taken.”
People v. Carter, 919 P.2d 862 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “1990), the supreme court dealt with the admissibility of a videotaped interview of the child victim, as distinguished from a videotaped deposition taken pursuant to § 18-3-413, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). There, the trial court had admitted the taped interview into evidence…”
People v. Tharp, 746 P.2d 1337 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Subsequently, the People moved for an order directing the taking of a videotape deposition of Christy, the alleged victim, pursuant to section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986). 1 In addition, the People also moved in limine that the statements of Christy, made to her mother, Charlotte…”
People v. Melendez, 80 P.3d 883 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “He also objected to the admission of the videotape on the basis that it did not comply with the requirements of § 18-3-413 and thus was inadmissible under People v.”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code § 1346 (West 1986); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-413 (Bradford 1986); Conn.”
People v. DeBella, 219 P.3d 390 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2d 155, 161 (Colo.1990) ("A videotaped interview of a child victim is undoubtedly more powerful, and thus potentially more prejudicial, than testimony of a witness about what the child said.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-413(1) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-413(3) — 3 cases
Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1990).
“On appeal to the court of appeals, he challenged the admission of videotaped depositions of two child victims pursuant to section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986), and contended that his due process rights were denied by the failure of the prosecution to elect a specific incident of…”
People v. Thomas, 770 P.2d 1324 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“Prior to trial, the court granted the People’s request that the court utilize the provisions of § 18-3-413, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8B) and allow the admission of videotape depositions of the victims in lieu of trial testimony.”
People v. Newbrough, 803 P.2d 155 (Colo. 1990).
“Newbrough initially contends that the videotaped deposition was not properly admissible under section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986), the statute providing for the taking and use of videotaped depositions.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-413(4) — 4 cases
Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1990).
“On appeal to the court of appeals, he challenged the admission of videotaped depositions of two child victims pursuant to section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986), and contended that his due process rights were denied by the failure of the prosecution to elect a specific incident of…”
People v. Newbrough, 803 P.2d 155 (Colo. 1990).
“Newbrough initially contends that the videotaped deposition was not properly admissible under section 18-3-413, 8B C.R.S. (1986), the statute providing for the taking and use of videotaped depositions.”
People v. Thomas, 770 P.2d 1324 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“Prior to trial, the court granted the People’s request that the court utilize the provisions of § 18-3-413, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8B) and allow the admission of videotape depositions of the victims in lieu of trial testimony.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-413(5) — 3 cases
People v. Carter, 919 P.2d 862 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“1990), the supreme court dealt with the admissibility of a videotaped interview of the child victim, as distinguished from a videotaped deposition taken pursuant to § 18-3-413, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). There, the trial court had admitted the taped interview into evidence…”
People v. DeBella, 219 P.3d 390 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“2d 155, 161 (Colo.1990) ("A videotaped interview of a child victim is undoubtedly more powerful, and thus potentially more prejudicial, than testimony of a witness about what the child said.”
People v. Melendez, 80 P.3d 883 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
“He also objected to the admission of the videotape on the basis that it did not comply with the requirements of § 18-3-413 and thus was inadmissible under People v.”
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.