Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title II Chapter 278
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 16D (2026)

Child witness testimony; videotaping or transmission by simultaneous electronic means in certain cases

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

Section 16D. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:—

''Child witness'', a person who is under the age of fifteen years and who is alleged to have been a victim of, or a witness to an alleged violation of section thirteen B, 13B1/2, 13B3/4, thirteen F, thirteen H, twenty-two, twenty-two A, 22B, 22C, twenty-three, 23A, 23B, twenty-four, 24B, 50 or 60 of chapter 265 or section two, three, four, four A, four B, five, six, seven, eight, twelve, thirteen, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-four, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, twenty-nine A, twenty-nine B, thirty-three, thirty-four or thirty-five A of chapter two hundred and seventy-two.

''Simultaneous electronic means'', Any device capable of projecting a live visual and aural transmission such as closed-circuit television.

(b)(1) At any time after the issuance of a complaint or indictment alleging an offense punished by any of the statutes listed herein, the court on its own motion or on motion of the proponent of a child witness, and after a hearing, may order the use of a suitable alternative procedure for taking the testimony of the child witness, in proceedings pursuant to said complaint or indictment, provided that the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence at the time of the order that the child witness is likely to suffer psychological or emotional trauma as a result of testifying in open court, as a result of testifying in the presence of the defendant, or as a result of both testifying in open court and testifying in the presence of the defendant. If the court orders the use of a suitable alternative for taking the testimony of a child witness pursuant to this section, the court shall make and enter specific findings upon the record describing with particularity the reasons for such order.

(2) An order issued under paragraph (1) shall provide that the testimony of the child witness be recorded on videotape or film to be shown in court at a later time or that the testimony be transmitted to the courtroom by simultaneous electronic means.

(3) Testimony taken by an alternative procedure pursuant to an order issued under paragraph (1) shall be taken in the presence of the judge, the prosecutor, defense counsel and such other persons as the court may allow. The defendant shall also have the right to be present unless the court's order under paragraph (1) is based wholly or in part upon a finding that the child witness is likely to suffer trauma as a result of testifying in the presence of the defendant. If the order is based on such a finding, the testimony of the child witness shall not be taken in the presence of the defendant except as provided in paragraph (4).

(4) Testimony taken by an alternative procedure pursuant to an order issued under paragraph (1) shall be taken in a suitable setting outside the courtroom, except that an order based only on a finding that the child witness is likely to suffer trauma as a result of testifying in the presence of the defendant may provide that the testimony be taken in a suitable setting inside the courtroom in a manner so that the child witness is not able to see or hear the defendant.

(5) When testimony is taken by an alternative procedure pursuant to an order issued under paragraph (1), counsel shall be given the opportunity to examine or cross-examine the child witness to the same extent as would be permitted at trial, and the defendant shall be able to see and hear the child witness and to have constant private communication with defense counsel.

(6) The film, videotape or transmission of testimony taken by an alternative procedure pursuant to an order issued under paragraph (1) shall be admissible as substantive evidence to the same extent as and in lieu of live testimony by the child witness in any proceeding for which the order is issued or in any related criminal proceeding against the same defendant when consistent with the interests of justice, provided that such an order is entered or re-entered based on current findings at the time when or within a reasonable time before the film, videotape or transmission is offered into evidence. Subsequent testimony of a child witness in any such proceeding shall also be taken by a suitable alternative procedure pursuant to this section.

(7) Whenever pursuant to an order issued under paragraph (1), testimony is recorded on videotape or film or is transmitted to the courtroom by simultaneous electronic means, the court shall ensure that:

(a) The recording or transmitting equipment is capable of making an accurate recording or transmission and is operated by a competent operator;

(b) The recording or transmission is in color and the witness is visible at all times;

(c) Every voice on the recording or transmission is audible and identified;

(d) The courtroom is equipped with monitors which permit the jury and others present in the courtroom to see and hear the recording or transmission;

(e) In the case of recorded testimony, the recording is accurate and has not been altered;

(f) In the case of recorded testimony, each party is afforded the opportunity to view the recording before it is shown in the courtroom.

(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the court from using other appropriate means, consistent with this section and other laws and with the defendant's rights, to protect a child witness from trauma during a court proceeding.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1986–2019 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618 (Mass. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618 (Mass. 1997). · cites it 5× “The Bergstrom case declared G. L. c. 278, § 16D, unconstitutional. This was a statute which, in certain circumstances, permitted a child witness to have his testimony electronically recorded and presented to the jury as the testimony of the child at the trial of a defendant…”
State v. Mark Bergquist, 211 A.3d 946 (Vt. 2019). “§ 17-8-55 (d) ; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 278, § 16D(b)(1).”
Commonwealth v. Dockham, 542 N.E.2d 591 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 3× “); and (8) the constitutionality of the videotaping statute, G. L. c. 278, § 16D (1988 ed.), as a denial of the right to a public trial.”
Commonwealth v. Bergstrom, 524 N.E.2d 366 (Mass. 1988). · cites it 3× “Prior to trial, the Commonwealth moved, pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 16D (1986 ed.), to take the children’s testimony by use of simultaneous closed circuit television transmission.”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 4× “15 § 1205 (West 1986); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 278, § 16D (West 1986); Mont.”
Commonwealth v. Amirault, 535 N.E.2d 193 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “*241 After this case was tried, this court held G. L. c. 278, § 16D, which allows the presentation of a sexually abused child’s testimony by videotape or simultaneous transmission, to be unconstitutional to the extent that it violated a defendant’s right to confrontation by…”
Commonwealth v. Jones, 37 N.E.3d 589 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 2× “The public undoubtedly does have a compelling interest in protecting the privacy rights of rape victims and guarding against retraumatization through the public disclosure of intimate details regarding their past sexual conduct.”
Commonwealth v. Tufts, 542 N.E.2d 586 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “The prosecutor then moved to videotape the child’s testimony outside the presence of the defendants and the jury under the provisions of G. L. c. 278, § 16D (1988 ed.). The judge allowed the videotaping of the child witness’s testimony but conducted the videotaping in the…”
Commonwealth v. Baran, 490 N.E.2d 479 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “(See now G. L. c. 278, § 16D, inserted by St. 1985, c.”
Barrett v. Leary, 614 N.E.2d 1035 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). “In Bergstrom , the court was called upon to interpret G. L. c. 278, § 16D (1986 ed.), which, under certain circumstances, allowed a child witness or victim of certain sexual crimes to testify by electronic means outside the presence of the defendant.”
State v. McCutcheon, 560 A.2d 1303 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988). “Justice O'Connor's concurrence is therefore entitled to consideration.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 16D(b)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Mark Bergquist, 211 A.3d 946 (Vt. 2019). “§ 17-8-55 (d) ; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 278, § 16D(b)(1).”
State v. McCutcheon, 560 A.2d 1303 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988). “Justice O'Connor's concurrence is therefore entitled to consideration.”
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.