Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.680 (2026)

Court may order video recording of alleged child victim, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

491.680. Court may order video recording of alleged child victim, when — procedure — transcript — exclusion of defendant from proceedings, opportunity to review — cross-examination. — 1. In any criminal prosecution under the provisions of chapter 565, 566 or 568 involving an alleged child victim, upon the motion of the prosecuting attorney, the court may order that an in-camera videotaped deposition of the testimony of the alleged child victim be made for use as substantive evidence at preliminary hearings and at trial.

2. If the court finds, at a hearing, that significant emotional or psychological trauma to the child which would result from testifying in the personal presence of the defendant exists, which makes the child unavailable as a witness at the time of the preliminary hearing or trial, the court shall order that an in-camera videotaped deposition of the testimony of the alleged child victim be made for use as substantive evidence at the preliminary hearings and at trial. Such recording shall be retained by the prosecuting attorney and shall be admissible in lieu of the child's personal appearance and testimony at preliminary hearings and at trial, conflicting provisions of section 544.270 notwithstanding. A transcript of such testimony shall be made as soon as possible after the completion of such deposition and shall be provided to the defendant together with all other discoverable materials.

3. Upon a finding of trauma as provided for in subsection 2 of this statute, the court may also exclude the defendant from the videotape deposition proceedings in which the child is to testify. Where any such order of exclusion is entered, the child shall not be excused as a witness until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to review the videotape deposition in private with his counsel and to consult with his counsel; and until his counsel has been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the child following such review and consultation.

4. The court shall preside over the depositions, which shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable to criminal cases.

5. The attorney for the defendant shall have at least two opportunities to cross-examine the deposed alleged child victim: once prior to the preliminary hearing and at least one additional time prior to the trial.

6. Prior to the taking of the deposition which is to be used as substantive evidence at the trial pursuant to sections 491.675 to 491.693, the defendant's attorney shall be provided with such discoverable materials and information as the court may, on motion, direct; shall be afforded a reasonable time to examine such materials; and shall be permitted to cross-examine the child during the deposition.

7. If the defendant is not represented by counsel and if, upon inquiry, it appears to the court that the defendant will be unable to obtain counsel within a reasonable period of time, the court shall appoint the public defender or other counsel to represent the defendant at the deposition.

--------

(L. 1985 H.B. 366, et al. § 9, A.L. 1992 S.B. 638)

(1989) Taking of video recording of child's deposition where defendant was excluded from room where deposition was taken was violation of defendant's right of confrontation where no evidence of possible trauma was offered. State v. Davidson, 764 S.W.2d 731 (Mo. App.W.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445 (Mo. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445 (Mo. 1992). · cites it 93× “Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, on various grounds, including the claim that his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 18(a), of the Missouri Constitution was violated by the use of…”

State v. Sanders, 126 S.W.3d 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 28× “The State also filed a pretrial "Motion to Order Video Recording of Alleged Child Victim, Excluding Defendant From Proceedings" seeking authorization to conduct, pursuant to Section 491.680, RSMo, an incamera videotaped deposition of R.”

State v. Bewley, 68 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 13× “declared as an unavailable witness under section 491.680, RSMo 2000. 10 Prior to trial, a hearing was held pursuant to section 491.”

State v. Griffin, 202 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 14× “to testify by videotaped deposition in accordance with section 491.680. The State also filed a motion to exclude Mr.”

State v. Wright, 998 S.W.2d 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “Of course, as Defendant notes, Defendant's decision to go to trial did not force the victims to testify in front of Defendant or the court or jury, for the court could, but did not, excuse them from giving open-court testimony pursuant to Section 491.680, RSMo 1994. [2] The fact…”

State v. Sanchez, 752 S.W.2d 319 (Mo. 1988). · cites it 12× “In this appeal, he asserts among other things that the admission of videotaped depositions of the alleged victims pursuant to § 491.680, RSMo 1986, denied him his right to confront the witnesses against him guaranteed by the United States and Missouri Constitutions.”

State v. Hill, 247 S.W.3d 34 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “The Missouri legislature subsequently enacted section 491.680 RSMo (2000). This statute provides that in prosecutions under chapters 565, 567 and 568, a victim under the age of fourteen can testify by means of an in-camera videotaped deposition, and the defendant can be excluded…”

In the Interest of Kierst v. D.D.H., 965 S.W.2d 932 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “banc 1988), in regard to whether Section 491.680, RSMo 1986 permitted admission at trial, over defendant’s objection, of a videotaped deposition of a child victim taken for use as substantive evidence.”

State v. Justus, 205 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 2× “On remand the trial court and the parties may explore whether the victim, who is older now, is available to testify in person or by deposition in which she would be subject to cross-examination by defense counsel, as provided in section 491.680 or otherwise. Conclusion The…”

State v. Celis-Garcia, 420 S.W.3d 723 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “in the form of a videotaped deposition taken pursuant to section 491.680. She argues that at the deposition and the first trial, Celis-Garcia and then-co-defendant Flores “were both represented by previous counsel, who could not take a position during the deposition in favor of…”

State of Missouri v. Jose F. Flores, 437 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “See §§ 491.680 and 491.685. The court heard testimony from the girls’ therapist Ellen Walls, a licensed clinical social worker.”

State v. Uelentrup, 910 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “as provided in § 491.680 RSMo 1994 1 and to exclude defendant from the proceedings pursuant to § 491.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.680(4) — 1 case

State v. Bohanon, 747 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

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.