Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 915.38 (2026)

Televised, videotaped, and recorded evidence — limited court testimony — minors and others

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. a. Upon its own motion or upon motion of any party, a court may protect a minor, as defined in section 599.1, from trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant where it would impair the minor’s ability to communicate, by ordering that the testimony of the minor be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed-circuit equipment for viewing in the courtroom. However, such an order shall be entered only upon a specific finding by the court that such measures are necessary to protect the minor from trauma. Only the judge, prosecuting attorney, defendant’s attorney, persons necessary to operate the equipment, and any person whose presence, in the opinion of the court, would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the minor may be present in the room with the minor during the minor’s testimony. The judge shall inform the minor that the defendant will not be present in the room in which the minor will be testifying but that the defendant will be viewing the minor’s testimony through closed-circuit television. b. During the minor’s testimony the defendant shall remain in the courtroom and shall be allowed to communicate with the defendant’s counsel in the room where the minor is testifying by an appropriate electronic method. c. In addition, upon a finding of necessity, the court may allow the testimony of a victim or witness with a mental illness, an intellectual disability, or other developmental disability to be taken as provided in this subsection, regardless of the age of the victim or witness. 2. The court may, upon its own motion or upon motion of a party, order that the testimony of a minor, as defined in section 599.1, be taken by recorded deposition for use at trial, pursuant to rule of criminal procedure 2.13(2)(b). In addition to requiring that such testimony be recorded by stenographic means, the court may on motion and hearing, and upon a finding that the minor is unavailable as provided in rule of evidence 5.804(a), order the videotaping of the minor’s testimony for viewing in the courtroom by the court. The videotaping shall comply with the provisions of rule of criminal procedure 2.13(2)(b), and shall be admissible as evidence in the trial. In addition, upon a finding of necessity, the court may allow the testimony of a victim or witness with a mental illness, an intellectual disability, or other developmental disability to be taken as provided in this subsection, regardless of the age of the victim or witness. 3. The court may upon motion of a party admit into evidence the recorded statements of a child, as defined in section 702.5, describing sexual contact performed with or on the child, not otherwise admissible in evidence by statute or court rule if the court determines that the recorded statements substantially comport with the requirements for admission under rule of evidence 5.807. 4. A court may, upon its own motion or upon the motion of a party, order the court testimony of a child to be limited in duration in accordance with the developmental maturity of the child. The court may consider or hear expert testimony in order to determine the\n\nTue Dec 09 21:51:55 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 915 (75, 1) 15 VICTIM RIGHTS, §915.40\n\nappropriate limitation on the duration of a child’s testimony. However, the court shall, upon motion, limit the duration of a child’s uninterrupted testimony to one hour, at which time the court shall allow the child to rest before continuing to testify. 98 Acts, ch 1090, §31, 84; 2012 Acts, ch 1019, §143; 2013 Acts, ch 30, §234; 2022 Acts, ch 1021, §178

\n

915.39 Reserved.\n\n SUBCHAPTER V VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: State v. Shearon, 660 N.W.2d 52 (Iowa 2003).
State v. Shearon, 660 N.W.2d 52 (Iowa 2003). “Iowa Code § 915.38 . The record reveals a brief colloquy between the court and K.”
Lomholt v. Burt, 219 F. Supp. 2d 977 (N.D. Iowa 2002). · cites it 2× “14(1) (now codified at Iowa Code § 915.38 (1)). Nor does the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Hoversten v.”
State of Iowa v. Abel Gomez Medina (Iowa 2024). · cites it 7× “Before the trial, in May 2020, the State moved to permit closed-circuit tes- timony by Dorothy and Frank under Iowa Code § 915.38 (2019), arguing that “closed-circuit testimony is necessary to protect the minor witnesses [Dorothy] and [Frank] from trauma caused by in-person…”
State of Iowa v. Abel Gomez Medina (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “And Gomez Medina maintains that it would be against public policy and “open the floodgates” to restrict “face-to- face confrontation” simply because someone is diagnosed with a mental illness.”
State of Iowa v. Jake Skahill (Iowa 2021). · cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 915.38 (1)(a) (allowing this procedure to protect a minor from trauma).”
State of Iowa v. Mario Hernandez (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 915.38 (1)(a). In other words, the district court must make a “specific finding” that closed-circuit testimony is “necessary to protect the minor,” with specific reference to “trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant where it would impair…”
State of Iowa v. Jose Luis Aguilar (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 915.38 (1). The statutory procedure preserves the right to confrontation while also protecting the alleged child victim from significant emotional trauma.”
State of Iowa v. David Jay Nuno (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “See Iowa Code § 915.38 (1)(a) (“[A] court may protect a minor .”
State of Iowa v. Dewayne Michael Veverka (Iowa 2020). “Iowa Code § 915.38 (3). A child is defined as a “person under the age of fourteen years.”
State of Iowa v. Jake Skahill (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). “” Iowa Code § 915.38 (3); see also State v.”
State of Iowa v. Fabian Ivan Garcia (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). “807; see also Iowa Code § 915.38 (3). Under the residual exception, such a video is admissible if the State shows five elements: “trustworthiness, materiality, necessity, service of the interests of justice, and notice.”
State of Iowa v. Timothy M. Fontenot (Iowa 2021). “Iowa Code § 915.38 (3). This court has not determined what “substantially comport” means.”
— Iowa Code § 915.38(1) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Abel Gomez Medina (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). “And Gomez Medina maintains that it would be against public policy and “open the floodgates” to restrict “face-to- face confrontation” simply because someone is diagnosed with a mental illness.”
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.