A. The provisions of this section shall apply to an alleged victim who was 14 years of age or younger at the time of the alleged offense and is 16 years of age or younger at the time of the trial and to a witness who is 14 years of age or younger at the time of the trial.
In any criminal proceeding, including preliminary hearings, involving an alleged offense against a child, relating to a violation of the laws pertaining to kidnapping pursuant to Article 3 (§ 18.2-47 et seq.) of Chapter 4, criminal sexual assault pursuant to Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.) of Chapter 4, commercial sex trafficking or prostitution offenses pursuant to Article 3 (§ 18.2-346 et seq.) of Chapter 8, or family offenses pursuant to Article 4 (§ 18.2-362 et seq.) of Chapter 8, or involving an alleged murder of a person of any age, the attorney for the Commonwealth or the defendant may apply for an order from the court that the testimony of the alleged victim or a child witness be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised by two-way closed-circuit television or other securely encrypted two-way audio and video technology. The party seeking such order shall apply for the order at least 14 days before the trial date or at least seven days before such other preliminary proceeding to which the order is to apply.
B. The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by two-way closed-circuit television or other securely encrypted two-way audio and video technology as provided in subsection A if it finds that the child is unavailable to testify in open court in the presence of the defendant, the jury, the judge, and the public, for any of the following reasons:
1. The child's persistent refusal to testify despite judicial requests to do so;
2. The child's substantial inability to communicate about the offense; or
3. The court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, based upon expert opinion testimony, that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional trauma that is more than nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify as a result of testifying in the defendant's presence and not in the courtroom generally and where such trauma would impair the child's ability to communicate.
Any ruling on the child's unavailability under this subsection shall be supported by the court with findings on the record or with written findings in a court not of record.
C. In any proceeding in which two-way closed-circuit television or other securely encrypted two-way audio and video technology is used to receive testimony, the attorney for the Commonwealth and the defendant's attorney shall be present in the room with the child, and the child shall be subject to direct and cross-examination. The only other persons allowed to be present in the room with the child during his testimony shall be those persons necessary to operate the two-way closed-circuit equipment or other securely encrypted two-way audio and video technology and any other person whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child.
D. The child's testimony shall be transmitted by two-way closed-circuit television or other securely encrypted two-way audio and video technology into the courtroom for the defendant, jury, judge, and public to view. The defendant shall be provided with a means of private, contemporaneous communication with his attorney during the testimony.
E. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the cost of the two-way closed-circuit television or other securely encrypted two-way audio and video technology shall be assessed against the defendant.
1988, c. 846; 1999, c. 668; 2001, c. 410; 2019, c. 146; 2020, c. 122; 2025, c. 191.
Notes of Decisions
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 580 S.E.2d 486 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 32× “On appeal, appellant contends that: (1) Code § 18.2-67.9, which allows child victims to testify via closed circuit television, is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him; (2) the Commonwealth failed to carry its burden to show that the child was unable to testify…”
Roadcap v. Commonwealth, 653 S.E.2d 620 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “” Roadcap also claims the particular method used to take the victim’s testimony via two-way closed-circuit television violated both Code § 18.2-67.9 and his confrontation clause rights under the Federal and Virginia Constitutions.”
Parrish v. Commonwealth, 567 S.E.2d 576 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 20× “On appeal, he contends the trial court violated his right of confrontation by allowing the victim to testify by closed-circuit television, pursuant to Code § 18.2-67.9. For the reasons stated, we affirm appellant’s conviction.”
Joseph Altiro Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 758 S.E.2d 81 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 22× “(the child victim) to write certain portions of her testimony, rather than speaking it, as this violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. Second, appellant contends the trial court lacked the authority to allow C.”
Kelly Daniel Bass v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 829 S.E.2d 554 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “On the first motion, Moore argued that the malfunctioning system denied him a “contemporaneous and private conduit allowed between Counsel and the Defendant while Counsel is in the testimony room,” which Moore argued was required by Code § 18.2-67.9. The trial judge denied the…”
Robert McKinley Blankenship v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 823 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2-359(D) (expanding venue in prosecutions for sexual assaults of minors); Code § 18.2-67.9 (allowing child to testify by two-way closed-circuit television in certain circumstances).”
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
· cites it 2× “41 (C), (E) (1987); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.9 (1988); Vt. Rule Evid.”
Christopher Dustin Mayberry v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 13× “1 On appeal, Mayberry argues that the trial court erroneously permitted the victim to testify by closed-circuit television under Code § 18.2-67.9. Mayberry also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his aggravated sexual battery conviction and two of his…”
Robert Dominic Civitello, Sr v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “2 On appeal, Civitello first contends the trial court erred in granting the Commonwealth's motion, pursuant to Code § 18.2-67.9, requesting to use two-way closed-circuit television to present the testimony of the child victims.”
Bass v. Clarke (W.D. Va. 2023).
· cites it 6× “, age 9 at the time of the trial, testified by closed-circuit television, pursuant to Virginia Code § 18.2-67.9. She identified Bass as her cousin, who lived with his parents, her Uncle Danny and Aunt Brenda.”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.9(2): 1 case
Christopher Dustin Mayberry v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“1 On appeal, Mayberry argues that the trial court erroneously permitted the victim to testify by closed-circuit television under Code § 18.2-67.9. Mayberry also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his aggravated sexual battery conviction and two of his…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.9(B): 1 case
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 580 S.E.2d 486 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“On appeal, appellant contends that: (1) Code § 18.2-67.9, which allows child victims to testify via closed circuit television, is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him; (2) the Commonwealth failed to carry its burden to show that the child was unable to testify…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.9(B)(2): 1 case
Robert Dominic Civitello, Sr v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“2 On appeal, Civitello first contends the trial court erred in granting the Commonwealth's motion, pursuant to Code § 18.2-67.9, requesting to use two-way closed-circuit television to present the testimony of the child victims.”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.9(D): 2 cases
Kelly Daniel Bass v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 829 S.E.2d 554 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
“On the first motion, Moore argued that the malfunctioning system denied him a “contemporaneous and private conduit allowed between Counsel and the Defendant while Counsel is in the testimony room,” which Moore argued was required by Code § 18.2-67.9. The trial judge denied the…”
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.