Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 233
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 81 (2026)

Criminal proceedings; out-of-court statements describing sexual contact; admissibility

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 81. (a) An out-of-court statement of a child under the age of ten describing an act of sexual contact performed on or with the child, the circumstances under which it occurred, or which identifies the perpetrator shall be admissible as substantive evidence in any criminal proceeding; provided, however, that the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact and is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; the person to whom the statement was made or who heard the child make the statement testifies; the judge finds pursuant to subsection (b) that the child is unavailable as a witness; and the judge finds pursuant to subsection (c) that the statement is reliable.

(b) The proponent of such statement shall demonstrate a diligent and good faith effort to produce the child and shall bear the burden of showing unavailability. A finding of unavailability shall be supported by specific findings on the record, describing facts with particularity, demonstrating that:

(1) the child is unable to be present or to testify because of death or physical or mental illness or infirmity; or

(2) by a ruling of the court, the child is exempt on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of such statement; or

(3) the child testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of such statement; or

(4) the child is absent from the hearing and the proponent of such statement has been unable to procure the attendance of the child by process or by other reasonable means; or

(5) the court finds, based upon expert testimony from a treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinician, that testifying would be likely to cause severe psychological or emotional trauma to the child; or

(6) the child is not competent to testify.

(c) If a finding of unavailability is made, the out-of-court statement shall be admitted if the judge further finds: (1) after holding a separate hearing, that such statement was made under oath, that it was accurately recorded and preserved, and there was sufficient opportunity to cross-examine; or (2) after holding a separate hearing and, where practicable and where not inconsistent with the best interests of the child, meeting with the child, that such statement was made under circumstances inherently demonstrating a special guarantee of reliability.

For the purposes of finding circumstances demonstrating reliability pursuant to clause (2) of subsection (c), a judge may consider whether the relator documented the child witness's statement, and shall consider the following factors:

(i) the clarity of the statement, meaning, the child's capacity to observe, remember, and give expression to that which such child has seen, heard, or experienced; provided, however, that a finding under this clause shall be supported by expert testimony from a treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinician;

(ii) the time, content and circumstances of the statement;

(iii) the child's sincerity and ability to appreciate the consequences of such statement.

(d) An out-of-court statement which is admissible by common law or by statute shall remain admissible notwithstanding the provisions of this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Colin C., 643 N.E.2d 19 (Mass. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Colin C., 643 N.E.2d 19 (Mass. 1994). · cites it 17× “Pursuant to G. L. c. 233, § 81, 2 the judge allowed Ned’s mother to testify about her son’s ex *56 tra judicial statements because he found that Ned had made those statements “under circumstances inherently demonstrating a special guarantee of reliability.”
Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana, 986 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2013). · cites it 6× “2012); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 81 (2000); Mass.”
Commonwealth v. Patton, 934 N.E.2d 236 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 3× “The Commonwealth’s case did not deteriorate as a result of the recantation evidence. 4. Evidentiary issues. The probationer argues that the videotaped SAIN interview with the child did not meet the require *132 ments for admissibility under G.”
Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618 (Mass. 1997). · cites it 2× “” The provision goes on to include in the definition of unavailability that “the court finds, based upon the expert testimony from a treating psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinician, that testifying would be likely to cause severe psychological or emotional trauma to the child.”
Adoption of Olivette, 944 N.E.2d 1068 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “, supra at 65, the court explicitly discussed *148 the possibility that statements of an incompetent child might be admissible under the cognate statutory exception created by § 81: “Although the trial judge has discretion in finding both unavailability and reliability under G.…”
Snowden v. State, 846 A.2d 36 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004). “§ 60-460 (dd) (2003); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 233, § 81 (2003); Minn.”
Adoption of Quentin, 678 N.E.2d 1325 (Mass. 1997). “In 1990, the Legislature enacted G. L. c. 233, § 81 (hearsay statements of child victims in criminal matters), § 82 (hearsay statements of children in civil matters), and § 83 (such statements in foster care proceedings).”
Commonwealth v. Joubert, 647 N.E.2d 1238 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “Nor may the statement permissibly be admitted in evidence under G. L. c. 233, § 81, as inserted by St. 1990, c.”
Commonwealth v. Napolitano, 678 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). “That decision nowhere mentions any such broader confrontation right, and the ratio decidendi is limited to statements by alleged child abuse victims under age ten offered pursuant to G. L. c. 233, § 81. See id. at 61-66. Such statements are recognized as fundamentally less…”
Adoption of Iliana (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). “54, 63 (1994) (analyzing G. L. c. 233, § 81). See Adoption of Quentin, 424 Mass.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 81(c)(i) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Joubert, 647 N.E.2d 1238 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “Nor may the statement permissibly be admitted in evidence under G. L. c. 233, § 81, as inserted by St. 1990, c.”
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.