491.685. Defendant may be excluded from child victim deposition proceedings, when. — 1. On motion of the prosecuting attorney, the court may exclude the defendant from any or all deposition proceedings at which the child is to testify. However, 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 recording 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.
2. The court may also order, on motion of the prosecuting attorney, during all predeposition procedures, recesses, and post-deposition matters that the child be sequestered from the view and presence of the defendant.
3. In no event shall the child's videotaped testimony be admitted into evidence until the defendant and his attorney have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to review the videotape in private in the presence of each other.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445 (Mo. 1992).
State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445 (Mo. 1992).
· cites it 20× “680, RSMo 1986, from which the defendant was excluded pursuant to § 491.685, RSMo 1986. The court of appeals transferred the case to this Court because of the constitutional issue.”
State v. Griffin, 202 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “Griffin from the deposition proceedings under section 491.685. The trial court found that “significant emotional or psychological trauma would result to child from testifying in [the] personal presence of the defendant” and granted both mo *674 tions.”
State v. Sanchez, 752 S.W.2d 319 (Mo. 1988).
· cites it 3× “680 1 and to exclude the defendant from the proceedings pursuant to § 491.685. 2 The motion contained an assertion that a psychologist who had been treating the victims “states that [they] are very traumatized due to the acts committed upon them and would be unable to testify in…”
State v. Costa, 11 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “680 and Section 491.685, that significant emotional or psychological trauma would result from Jennifer testifying in the personal presence of the Appellant either at trial or in a deposition, and that Jennifer was therefore unavailable as a witness.”
State v. Uelentrup, 910 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “680 RSMo 1994 1 and to exclude defendant from the proceedings pursuant to § 491.685 RSMo 1994. 2 The court sustained *721 the State’s motion following a hearing in which it found the girls would suffer significant emotional or psychological trauma if made to testify in open…”
State v. Bohanon, 747 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “That objection was that contrary to § 491.685(3), the defendant and his attorney had not been afforded an opportunity to review the videotape in private and in the presence of each other.”
State v. Davidson, 764 S.W.2d 731 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “” Section 491.685 provides that on motion of the prosecutor the court may exclude the defendant from any deposition in which the child is to testify.”
State of Missouri v. Deric A. Rugen, 708 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “3; see also Section 491.685. 6 Finally, subsection 4 of the statute states, “The court shall preside over the depositions, which shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable to criminal cases.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.685(3): 1 case
State v. Bohanon, 747 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
“That objection was that contrary to § 491.685(3), the defendant and his attorney had not been afforded an opportunity to review the videotape in private and in the presence of each other.”
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.