Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (2026)
Admission of video recording of interview of child describing sexual conduct
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Notwithstanding this part to the contrary, a video recording of a child by a forensic interviewer containing a statement made by the child under eighteen (18) years of age describing an act of sexual or physically violent contact performed with or on the child by a person or describing an act of sexual or physically violent contact performed by a person with or on another and witnessed by the child is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant in evidence at any stage of a criminal proceeding of the person for any offense arising from the sexual or physically violent contact if the requirements of this section are met.
- (b) A video recording may be admitted as provided in subsection (a) if:
- (1) The child testifies, under oath, that the offered video recording is a true and correct recording of the events contained in the video recording and the child is available for cross examination;
- (2) The video recording is shown to the reasonable satisfaction of the court, in a hearing conducted pretrial, to possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, the court shall consider the following factors:
- (A) The mental and physical age and maturity of the child;
- (B) Any apparent motive the child may have to falsify or distort the event, including, but not limited to, bias or coercion;
- (C) The timing of the child's statement;
- (D) The nature and duration of the alleged abuse;
- (E) Whether the child's young age makes it unlikely that the child fabricated a statement that represents a graphic, detailed account beyond the child's knowledge and experience;
- (F) Whether the statement is spontaneous or directly responsive to questions;
- (G) Whether the manner in which the interview was conducted was reliable, including, but not limited to, the absence of any leading questions;
- (H) Whether extrinsic evidence exists to show the defendant's opportunity to commit the act complained of in the child's statement;
- (I) The relationship of the child to the offender;
- (J) Whether the equipment that was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and
- (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court;
- (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as determined by the court:
- (A) Was employed by a child advocacy center that meets the requirements of § 9-4-213(a) or (b); provided, however, that an interview shall not be inadmissible solely because the interviewer is employed by a child advocacy center that:
- (i) Is not a nonprofit corporation, if the child advocacy center is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency; or
- (ii) Employs an executive director who does not meet the criteria of § 9-4-213(a)(2), if the executive director is supervised by a publicly elected official;
- (B) Had graduated from an accredited college or university with a bachelor's degree in a field related to social service, education, criminal justice, nursing, psychology or other similar profession;
- (C)
- (i) Had experience equivalent to three (3) years of full-time professional work in one (1) or a combination of the following areas:
- (a) Child protective services;
- (b) Criminal justice;
- (c) Clinical evaluation;
- (d) Counseling; or
- (e) Forensic interviewing or other comparable work with children; or
- (ii) Had been supervised by an experienced forensic interviewer for a minimum of twenty (20) forensic interviews, in addition to the requirement of subdivision (b)(3)(E);
- (i) Had experience equivalent to three (3) years of full-time professional work in one (1) or a combination of the following areas:
- (D) Had completed a minimum of forty (40) hours of forensic training in interviewing traumatized children and fifteen (15) hours of continuing education annually;
- (E) Had completed a minimum of eight (8) hours of interviewing under the supervision of a qualified forensic interviewer of children;
- (F) Had knowledge of child development through coursework, professional training or experience;
- (G) Had no criminal history as determined through a criminal records background check; and
- (H) Had actively participated in peer review;
- (A) Was employed by a child advocacy center that meets the requirements of § 9-4-213(a) or (b); provided, however, that an interview shall not be inadmissible solely because the interviewer is employed by a child advocacy center that:
- (4) The recording is both visual and oral and is recorded on film or videotape or by other similar audiovisual means;
- (5) The entire interview of the child was recorded on the video recording and the video recording is unaltered and accurately reflects the interview of the child; and
- (6) Every voice heard on the video recording is properly identified as determined by the court.
- (c) The video recording admitted pursuant to this section shall be discoverable pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- (d) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section.
- (e) The court shall enter a protective order to restrict the video recording used pursuant to this section from further disclosure or dissemination. The video recording shall not become a public record in any legal proceeding. The court shall order the video recording be sealed and preserved following the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 139,Secs.s1, s2 eff. 4/6/2023.
Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 320, s 1, eff. 4/28/2015.
Acts 2009 , ch. 413, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy, 459 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014).
State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy, 459 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “We granted the State an interlocutory appeal to determine whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123 (Supp. 2014) violates the separation of powers, whether the video-recorded statement qualifies as inadmissible hearsay evidence, and whether the use of the statement at…”
State v. Stanley J. Maday, Jr., 2017 WI 28 (Wis. 2017). “, Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (Supp. 2016) (allowing the use of a videotaped forensic interview as evidence if certain conditions are met); Michael H.”
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890 (Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-7-123(a) (Supp.2014).”
Reid Duard Hayes v. State of Alaska, 474 P.3d 1179 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020). “233, § 82 (2020) (admitting “statements of a child under the age of ten”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (2020) (admitting “a video recording of an interview of a child by a forensic interviewer containing a statement made by the child under thirteen (13) years of age”).”
State of Tennessee v. Victor Gordon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (2017). The interview “may be - 11 - considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant in evidence at the trial” of the defendant.”
State of Tennessee v. John David Cunningham (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (Supp. 2022).”
State of Tennessee v. Richard Bryant Long (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed a video recording of the victim‟s interview to be admitted without satisfying the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123. After a thorough review of the record and relevant…”
State of Tennessee v. Travis Ruzicka (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (b)(3) (setting forth the qualifications for forensic interviewers).”
State of Tennessee v. Jose Dimas Alvarado (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Philip Michael Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a). The interview “may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant evidence at the trial” of the defendant.”
State of Tennessee v. Parvel Gudger (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “This contention is not supported by the record or the law.”
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Davis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (b). In the present case, an evidentiary hearing was held prior to trial during which multiple witness, including the victim, testified.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(2)(A): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Cordarious Franklin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(3): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
Marvin Davis v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(a): 10 cases
State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy, 459 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “We granted the State an interlocutory appeal to determine whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123 (Supp. 2014) violates the separation of powers, whether the video-recorded statement qualifies as inadmissible hearsay evidence, and whether the use of the statement at…”
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890 (Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-7-123(a) (Supp.2014).”
State of Tennessee v. Clinton Austin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Travis Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Jose Dimas Alvarado (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (emphasis added).”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b): 7 cases
State of Tennessee v. Parvel Gudger (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “This contention is not supported by the record or the law.”
State of Tennessee v. Jose Dimas Alvarado (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Franklin Monroe McMillan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. James R. Ciaramitaro (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(1): 12 cases
State of Tennessee v. Anthony T. Braden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Franklin Monroe McMillan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Cordarious Franklin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lester Haven (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Philip Michael Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a). The interview “may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant evidence at the trial” of the defendant.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(2): 10 cases
State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy, 459 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “We granted the State an interlocutory appeal to determine whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123 (Supp. 2014) violates the separation of powers, whether the video-recorded statement qualifies as inadmissible hearsay evidence, and whether the use of the statement at…”
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Lovin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. John David Cunningham (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (Supp. 2022).”
State of Tennessee v. Parvel Gudger (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “This contention is not supported by the record or the law.”
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Davis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (b). In the present case, an evidentiary hearing was held prior to trial during which multiple witness, including the victim, testified.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(2)(B): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. John David Cunningham (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (Supp. 2022).”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(2)(F): 1 case
Marvin Davis v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(2)(K): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy, 459 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “We granted the State an interlocutory appeal to determine whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123 (Supp. 2014) violates the separation of powers, whether the video-recorded statement qualifies as inadmissible hearsay evidence, and whether the use of the statement at…”
State of Tennessee v. Jose Dimas Alvarado (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (emphasis added).”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(2015): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jacque Bouvier Bennett (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(3): 9 cases
State of Tennessee v. Travis Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
Richard Bryant Long v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Cordarious Franklin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lester Haven (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Philip Michael Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a). The interview “may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant evidence at the trial” of the defendant.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(3)(B): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Toby S. Earhart (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(3)(C): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Lee Clymer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lester Haven (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(3)(C)(v): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Lee Clymer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Worley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(3)(D): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Richard Bryant Long (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed a video recording of the victim‟s interview to be admitted without satisfying the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123. After a thorough review of the record and relevant…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(3)(E): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Richard Bryant Long (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed a video recording of the victim‟s interview to be admitted without satisfying the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123. After a thorough review of the record and relevant…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(b)(l): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy, 459 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). “We granted the State an interlocutory appeal to determine whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123 (Supp. 2014) violates the separation of powers, whether the video-recorded statement qualifies as inadmissible hearsay evidence, and whether the use of the statement at…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(d): 5 cases
State of Tennessee v. Gary Strange (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Lovin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Anthony T. Braden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Philip Michael Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a). The interview “may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant evidence at the trial” of the defendant.”
State of Tennessee v. John David Cunningham (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a) (Supp. 2022).”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(e): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lester Haven (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Philip Michael Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123 (a). The interview “may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant evidence at the trial” of the defendant.”
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.