(1) This section applies only to a proceeding in the prosecution of an offense, including
but not limited to an offense under KRS 510.040 to 510.155, 529.030 to 529.050,
529.070, 529.100, 529.110, 530.020, 530.060, 530.064(1)(a), 531.310, 531.320,
531.370, or any specified in KRS 439.3401 and all dependency proceedings
pursuant to KRS Chapter 620, when the act is alleged to have been committed
against a child twelve (12) years of age or younger, and applies to the statements or
testimony of that child or another child who is twelve (12) years of age or younger
who witnesses one of the offenses included in this subsection.
(2) The court may, on the motion of the attorney for any party and upon a finding of
compelling need, order that the testimony of the child 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 the court finds would contribute to the welfare and well-
being of the child may be present in the room with the child during his testimony.
Only the attorneys may question the child. 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 child during his testimony, but does not permit the child to see or
hear them. The court shall permit the defendant to observe and hear the testimony of
the child in person, but shall ensure that the child cannot hear or see the defendant.
(3) The court may, on the motion of the attorney for any party and upon a finding of
compelling need, order that the testimony of the child 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 (3) of this section may be present during the
taking of the child's testimony, and the persons operating the equipment shall be
confined from the child's sight and hearing as provided by subsection (3) of this
section. The court shall permit the defendant to observe and hear the testimony of
the child in person, but shall ensure that the child cannot hear or see the defendant.
The court shall also ensure that:
(a) The recording is both visual and oral and is recorded on film or videotape or
by other electronic means;
(b) The recording equipment was capable of making an accurate recording, the
operator was competent, and the recording is accurate and is not altered;
(c) Each voice on the recording is identified; and
(d) Each party is afforded an opportunity to view the recording before it is shown
in the courtroom.
(4) If the court orders the testimony of a child to be taken under subsection (2) or (3) of
this section, the child may not be required to testify in court at the proceeding for
which the testimony was taken, but shall be subject to being recalled during the
course of the trial to give additional testimony under the same circumstances as with
any other recalled witness, provided that the additional testimony is given utilizing
the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) of this section.
(5) For the purpose of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, "compelling need" is
defined as the substantial probability that the child would be unable to reasonably
communicate because of serious emotional distress produced by the defendant's
presence.
Effective: June 25, 2013
History: Amended 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 25, sec. 21, effective June 25, 2013. -- Amended
2008 Ky. Acts ch. 58, sec. 1, effective July 15, 2008. -- Amended 2007 Ky. Acts ch.
19, sec. 10, effective June 26, 2007. -- Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 63,
effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 178, sec. 1, effective July 15,
1996. -- Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 439, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1986. -- Created
1984 Ky. Acts ch. 382, sec. 19, effective July 13, 1984.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Willis, 716 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. 1986).
Commonwealth v. Willis, 716 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. 1986).
· cites it 35× “After submission of written arguments, the trial judge sustained the defense motion to exclude the testimony of the child witness because he was of the opinion that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of KRS 421.350 were unconstitutional, as a violation of the defendant's right to confrontation…”
Greene v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 19× “§ 110(2)(b), asserting six claims of error, viz: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove he was not acting under an extreme emotional disturbance (EED); (2) the trial court allowed a minor not covered by KRS 421.350 to testify from outside the courtroom via closed circuit…”
Price v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 885 (Ky. 2000).
· cites it 10× “KRS 421.350 authorizes a procedure to allow the testimony of a child witness to be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed circuit equipment in the courtroom.”
Sparkman v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 667 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 10× “Appellant claims that in so doing, the trial court violated KRS 421.350 as well as the Confrontation Clauses found in the federal and state constitutions.”
Gaines v. Commonwealth, 728 S.W.2d 525 (Ky. 1987).
· cites it 10× “The Texas statute is very similar to KRS 421.350. Additional support for the valid constitutional foundation for the statutory plan may be found in "The Testimony of Child Victims in Sex Abuse Prosecutions: Two Legislative Innovations", 98 Harvard Law Review 806 (1985); and "The…”
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
· cites it 2× “§ 38-1558 (1986); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 421.350 (4) (Baldwin Supp.”
J.E. v. Commonwealth, 521 S.W.3d 210 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 11× “At the outset of this hearing, Commonwealth noted that the victim and her brother had not yet been evaluated by a psychologist, and consequently conceded that a compelling need for testimony by closed circuit television under KRS 421.350 could not be shown. The District Court…”
Ballard v. Commonwealth, 743 S.W.2d 21 (Ky. 1988).
· cites it 8× “KRS 421.350 contains special provisions for taking testimony from children allegedly sexually abused.”
George v. Commonwealth, 885 S.W.2d 938 (Ky. 1994).
· cites it 8× “This case requires a decision as to whether KRS 421.350 prohibits a child witness, not a child victim, in a child abuse case from testifying against a defendant at trial, outside the defendant’s physical presence, by closed circuit television.”
Kurtz v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 409 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 4× “A trial court’s finding of compelling need pursuant to KRS 421.350 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1997).
· cites it 2× “However, I renew my constitutional objection to KRS 421.350, as stated in my dissent in Commonwealth v.”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
· cites it 4× “§ 17-8-55 (Michie 1986); Ky. Rev.Stat. § 421.350(3) (1984); La. Rev.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.350(1) — 7 cases
Greene v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2006).
“§ 110(2)(b), asserting six claims of error, viz: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove he was not acting under an extreme emotional disturbance (EED); (2) the trial court allowed a minor not covered by KRS 421.350 to testify from outside the courtroom via closed circuit…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.350(2) — 19 cases
Price v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 885 (Ky. 2000).
“KRS 421.350 authorizes a procedure to allow the testimony of a child witness to be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed circuit equipment in the courtroom.”
Gaines v. Commonwealth, 728 S.W.2d 525 (Ky. 1987).
“The Texas statute is very similar to KRS 421.350. Additional support for the valid constitutional foundation for the statutory plan may be found in "The Testimony of Child Victims in Sex Abuse Prosecutions: Two Legislative Innovations", 98 Harvard Law Review 806 (1985); and "The…”
Ballard v. Commonwealth, 743 S.W.2d 21 (Ky. 1988).
“KRS 421.350 contains special provisions for taking testimony from children allegedly sexually abused.”
Greene v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2006).
“§ 110(2)(b), asserting six claims of error, viz: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove he was not acting under an extreme emotional disturbance (EED); (2) the trial court allowed a minor not covered by KRS 421.350 to testify from outside the courtroom via closed circuit…”
Sparkman v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 667 (Ky. 2008).
“Appellant claims that in so doing, the trial court violated KRS 421.350 as well as the Confrontation Clauses found in the federal and state constitutions.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.350(2)(h) — 1 case
Gaines v. Commonwealth, 728 S.W.2d 525 (Ky. 1987).
“The Texas statute is very similar to KRS 421.350. Additional support for the valid constitutional foundation for the statutory plan may be found in "The Testimony of Child Victims in Sex Abuse Prosecutions: Two Legislative Innovations", 98 Harvard Law Review 806 (1985); and "The…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.350(3) — 7 cases
Commonwealth v. Willis, 716 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. 1986).
“After submission of written arguments, the trial judge sustained the defense motion to exclude the testimony of the child witness because he was of the opinion that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of KRS 421.350 were unconstitutional, as a violation of the defendant's right to confrontation…”
George v. Commonwealth, 885 S.W.2d 938 (Ky. 1994).
“This case requires a decision as to whether KRS 421.350 prohibits a child witness, not a child victim, in a child abuse case from testifying against a defendant at trial, outside the defendant’s physical presence, by closed circuit television.”
Kurtz v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 409 (Ky. 2005).
“A trial court’s finding of compelling need pursuant to KRS 421.350 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1997).
“However, I renew my constitutional objection to KRS 421.350, as stated in my dissent in Commonwealth v.”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
“§ 17-8-55 (Michie 1986); Ky. Rev.Stat. § 421.350(3) (1984); La. Rev.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.350(4) — 2 cases
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
“§ 17-8-55 (Michie 1986); Ky. Rev.Stat. § 421.350(3) (1984); La. Rev.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.350(5) — 9 cases
Sparkman v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 667 (Ky. 2008).
“Appellant claims that in so doing, the trial court violated KRS 421.350 as well as the Confrontation Clauses found in the federal and state constitutions.”
Kurtz v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 409 (Ky. 2005).
“A trial court’s finding of compelling need pursuant to KRS 421.350 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
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.