La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 15:440.1 (2026)

Purpose

✓ laws through the 2025 Regular Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUBPART II.  ELECTRONIC RECORDING: PROTECTED PERSONS

§440.1.  Purpose

It is declared to be in the best interest of the state that protected persons be spared from crimes of violence, and that persons who commit such crimes be prosecuted with a minimum of additional intrusion into the lives of such protected persons.

Acts 1984, No. 563, §1; Acts 2004, No. 241, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: State v. Borden, 986 So. 2d 158 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Borden, 986 So. 2d 158 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “[11] In his third assignment of error, Borden contends that he was materially prejudiced and denied a fair trial when the trial court allowed the CAC tape to be entered into evidence and presented to the jury pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:440.1 et seq. despite the unconstitutionality…”
State v. Miller, 718 So. 2d 960 (La. 1998). · cites it 2× “R.S. 15:440.1, et seq., allows videotaped statements made by a child victim of sexual abuse to be admissible in evidence and states as the law's purpose that "[i]t is .”
State v. Gray, 533 So. 2d 1242 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “R.S. 15:440.1 et seq. provides for electronic recording of statements by child abuse victims.”
State v. Roberts, 966 So. 2d 111 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “R.S. 15:440.1, et seq., which are necessary before admitting the video tape.”
State v. Marcantel, 756 So. 2d 366 (La. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “R.S. 15:440.1 et seq. The rules *370 for admitting such videotaped statements are set forth in La.”
State v. Taylor, 821 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “R.S. 15:440.1. After a hearing on April 3, 2001, the District Court ruled that the other crimes evidence and the videotapes were admissible.”
State v. Watson, 900 So. 2d 325 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “The defense argued that the procedure used did not comply with the statutory requirements set forth in LSA-R.S. 15:440.1 et seq., because the electronic recording was not properly authorized and because some of the questions were calculated to lead the child to make a particular…”
State v. Duong, 148 So. 3d 623 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “R.S. 15:440.1 et seq. Second, defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on the prosecutor’s reference to defendant’s post-arrest exercise, upon the advice of counsel, of his right to remain silent.”
State in Interest of RC, 514 So. 2d 759 (La. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “The videotaping statute, R.S. 15:440.1 et seq., is unconstitutional.”
Hall v. State, 539 So. 2d 1338 (Miss. 1989). “355; Louisiana — LSA-R.S. 15:440.1 — 15:440.6; Maine — Me.”
State v. Bennett, 591 So. 2d 1193 (La. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “R.S. 15:440.1, et. seq. At the trial, defense counsel offered numerous objections to State Exhibit One, all of which were overruled by the trial court.”
State v. Luckey, 212 So. 3d 1220 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “15:283 and R.S. 15:440.1, et seq., do not apply in this case.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
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.