§ 5985. Testimony by contemporaneous alternative method.
(a) Contemporaneous alternative method.--Subject to subsection (a.1), in any prosecution or adjudication involving a child
victim or a child material witness, the court may order that the testimony of the
child victim or child material witness be taken under oath or affirmation in a room
other than the courtroom and transmitted by a contemporaneous alternative method.
Only the attorneys for the defendant and for the Commonwealth, the court reporter,
the judge, persons necessary to operate the equipment and any person whose presence
would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the child victim or child material
witness, including persons designated under section 5983 (relating to rights and services),
may be present in the room with the child during his testimony. The court shall permit
the defendant to observe and hear the testimony of the child victim or child material
witness but shall ensure that the child cannot hear or see the defendant. The court
shall make certain that the defendant and defense counsel have adequate opportunity
to communicate for the purposes of providing an effective defense. Examination and
cross-examination of the child victim or child material witness shall proceed in the
same manner as normally permitted.
(a.1) Determination.--Before the court orders the child victim or the child material witness to testify
by a contemporaneous alternative method, the court must determine, based on evidence
presented to it, that testifying either in an open forum in the presence and full
view of the finder of fact or in the defendant's presence will result in the child
victim or child material witness suffering serious emotional distress that would substantially
impair the child victim's or child material witness's ability to reasonably communicate.
In making this determination, the court may do all of the following:
(1) Observe and question the child victim or child material witness, either inside or
outside the courtroom.
(2) Hear testimony of a parent or custodian or any other person, such as a person who
has dealt with the child victim or child material witness in a medical or therapeutic
setting.
(a.2) Counsel and confrontation.--
(1) If the court observes or questions the child victim or child material witness under
subsection (a.1)(1), the attorney for the defendant and the attorney for the Commonwealth
have the right to be present, but the court shall not permit the defendant to be present.
(2) If the court hears testimony under subsection (a.1)(2), the defendant, the attorney
for the defendant and the attorney for the Commonwealth have the right to be present.
(b) Effect of order.--(Deleted by amendment).
(Dec. 18, 1996, P.L.1077, No.161, eff. 60 days; July 15, 2004, P.L.736, No.87, eff.
imd.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Strafford, 194 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
Commonwealth v. Strafford, 194 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 8× “§ 5985 permits a court to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether a child victim should testify by contemporaneous alternative method outside of the courtroom and the jury's presence. In order to allow this alternative method, the court must find "that testifying…”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 84 A.3d 680 (Pa. 2014).
· cites it 10× “In this interlocutory matter, Gordon Charles Williams (Appellant) appeals from the Superior Court’s order reversing the trial court’s determination that he had the *682 right to present testimony of an expert witness to rebut the Commonwealth’s evidence in support of its motion,…”
Commonwealth v. Torres-Kuilan, 156 A.3d 1229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 5× “Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985 and the Commonwealth’s motion, an in camera hearing was held to determine if the child would be allowed to testify other than in open court.”
Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 594 A.2d 281 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 6× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5985(a). [2] The Supreme Court found that the use of the one-way closed-circuit procedure, where necessary to further an important *486 state interest, did not impinge upon the purposes of the Confrontation Clause.”
Commonwealth v. Louden, 638 A.2d 953 (Pa. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Both the Commonwealth and the Appellees filed pre-trial motions.”
Commonwealth v. Louden, 803 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 5984, and to have this videotaped testimony presented at trial, or to have the children present live testimony via closed-circuit television, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985(a). The trial court granted permission, and the Commonwealth presented the videotaped testimony of the…”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
· cites it 2× “42 Pa. C.S. § 5985(a) (West 1986); R.I.Stat.”
Commonwealth v. Bizzaro, 535 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 2× “See: 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985(a). Id., 366 Pa.Superior Ct.”
L.W.B. v. Sosnowski, 543 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
“The next section also allows, in criminal prosecutions, a child’s testimony to be taken, subject to cross-examination, by closed-circuit television, to avoid the necessity of having the child appear in the courtroom in person.”
Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 531 A.2d 459 (Pa. 1987).
“See: 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985(a). . If this test is to be deemed an adjunct of the right to confront one’s accuser, much of the evidence relied upon by courts of law will be rendered inadmissible.”
Commonwealth v. Kemmerer, 33 A.3d 39 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).
“1 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985, respectively. . Appellant timely complied with the order of the trial court to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.”
Com. v. Shenk, T., Sr. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 2× “to testify outside of his presence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985. That statute provides as follows, in pertinent part: (a) Contemporaneous alternative method.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5985(a) — 8 cases
Commonwealth v. Strafford, 194 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“§ 5985 permits a court to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether a child victim should testify by contemporaneous alternative method outside of the courtroom and the jury's presence. In order to allow this alternative method, the court must find "that testifying…”
Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 594 A.2d 281 (Pa. 1991).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 5985(a). [2] The Supreme Court found that the use of the one-way closed-circuit procedure, where necessary to further an important *486 state interest, did not impinge upon the purposes of the Confrontation Clause.”
Commonwealth v. Louden, 638 A.2d 953 (Pa. 1994).
“Both the Commonwealth and the Appellees filed pre-trial motions.”
Commonwealth v. Louden, 803 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 2002).
“§ 5984, and to have this videotaped testimony presented at trial, or to have the children present live testimony via closed-circuit television, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985(a). The trial court granted permission, and the Commonwealth presented the videotaped testimony of the…”
State v. Flint, 761 P.2d 1158 (Idaho 1988).
“42 Pa. C.S. § 5985(a) (West 1986); R.I.Stat.”
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.