§283. Protected person; testimony taken outside courtroom
A. On its own motion or on the motion of the attorney for any party, a court may order that the testimony of a protected person who may have been a witness to or victim of a crime be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be simultaneously televised by closed circuit television to the court and jury, when the court makes a specific finding of necessity based upon both of the following:
(1) Expert testimony that the protected person would be likely to suffer serious emotional distress if forced to give testimony in open court.
(2) Expert testimony that, without such simultaneous televised testimony, the protected person cannot reasonably communicate his testimony to the court or jury.
B. The court shall ensure that the protected person cannot see or hear the accused unless such viewing or hearing is requested for purposes of identification. However, the court shall ensure that the accused is afforded the ability to consult with his attorney during the testimony of the protected person.
C. The only persons who may be present in the room with the protected person are the person or persons operating the audio-video equipment, the presiding judge, the attorneys for the state, the attorneys for the defendant, and any person, other than a relative of the protected person, whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the protected person during his testimony. 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 protected person during his testimony but does not permit the protected person to see or hear them.
D. Only the attorneys, or the presiding judge as authorized by law, may question the protected person.
E. For the purposes of this Section, "protected person" means a person who is the victim of a crime or a witness in a criminal prosecution who is either of the following:
(1) Under the age of seventeen years.
(2) Has a developmental disability as defined in R.S. 28:451.2(12).
Acts 1984, No. 563, §1; Acts 1991, No. 500, §1; Acts 2004, No. 241, §1; Acts 2006, No. 764, §2; Acts 2007, No. 70, §1, eff. August 15, 2007.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
51
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case:
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
· cites it 2× “1989); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:283 (West Supp. 1990); Md.”
State v. Daniels, 484 So. 2d 941 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 13× “R.S. 15:283. La.R.S. 15:283, enacted by Acts 1984, No.”
State v. Murphy, 542 So. 2d 1373 (La. 1989).
· cites it 6× “R.S. 15:283 in light of Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.”
State v. Luckey, 212 So. 3d 1220 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “R.S. 15:283; La. R.S. 15:440.1-15:440.6. Under La.”
State v. Wright, 690 So. 2d 850 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 9× “R.S. 15:283. On January 18, 1996, the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.”
State v. Racca, 525 So. 2d 1229 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 8× “R.S. 15:283 is unconstitutional. 3. The court erred by ruling the child-victim was competent to testify.”
State v. Marcantel, 756 So. 2d 366 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “R.S. 15:283 [1] . Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the defendant's right of confrontation.”
State v. Collins, 65 So. 3d 271 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 15:283. State v. Taylor, unpub. 2009-1157 (La.”
State in Interest of RC, 514 So. 2d 759 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “The admission into evidence of the videotape of a child as authorized herein shall not preclude the prosecution from calling the child as a witness or from taking the child's testimony outside of the courtroom as authorized in R.S. 15:283. Nothing in this section shall be…”
State v. Magee, 103 So. 3d 285 (La. 2012).
“R.S. 15:283. The district court, on October 13, 2009, also granted a motion in limine filed by the state seeking to preclude the questioning of witnesses as to their preferences regarding punishment.”
State v. Welch, 760 So. 2d 317 (La. 2000).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 15:283, [2] which provides for the shielding of young witnesses in Louisiana courtrooms.”
State v. Day, 253 So. 3d 173 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “R.S. 15:283 because she was a witness to a crime who was under the age of seventeen years; that she would likely suffer serious emotional distress if forced to give testimony in open court; and without simultaneous televised testimony, could not reasonably communicate her…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:283(A): 4 cases
State v. Day, 253 So. 3d 173 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
“R.S. 15:283 because she was a witness to a crime who was under the age of seventeen years; that she would likely suffer serious emotional distress if forced to give testimony in open court; and without simultaneous televised testimony, could not reasonably communicate her…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:283(A)(1): 1 case
State v. Wright, 690 So. 2d 850 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
“R.S. 15:283. On January 18, 1996, the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:283(C): 1 case
State v. Day, 253 So. 3d 173 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
“R.S. 15:283 because she was a witness to a crime who was under the age of seventeen years; that she would likely suffer serious emotional distress if forced to give testimony in open court; and without simultaneous televised testimony, could not reasonably communicate her…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:283(E): 1 case
State v. Luckey, 212 So. 3d 1220 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 15:283; La. R.S. 15:440.1-15:440.6. Under La.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:283(E)(1): 3 cases
State v. Collins, 65 So. 3d 271 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
“R.S. 15:283. State v. Taylor, unpub. 2009-1157 (La.”
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.