Wyo. Stat. § 7-11-408

Videotape depositions.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
     (a) In any case in which the defendant is charged with
incest as defined in W.S. 6-4-402(a) or sexual assault as
defined in W.S. 6-2-302 through 6-2-304 and 6-2-314 through
6-2-317 and a child less than twelve (12) years of age is the
victim, the judge may order the taking of a videotape deposition
of the child. The videotaping shall be done under the
supervision of the court.

     (b) Persons allowed to be present at the videotaping of
the deposition are the child, the judge, prosecutor, defendant
and defense counsel, a family member who was not a witness to
the offense or a support person for the child and any
technicians required to operate the equipment.

     (c)    Before ordering the deposition, the judge shall find
that:

            (i)   The child's testimony would be relevant and
material;

          (ii) The best interests of the child would be served
by permitting the videotape deposition;

          (iii) A potential physical or psychological harm to
the child is likely to occur if the child is required to testify
which would effectively render the child incapable to testify at
the trial; and

          (iv) The defendant or his legal counsel has the
opportunity to be present and to cross-examine the child at the
videotape deposition.

     (d) The judge may deny the defendant's face-to-face
confrontation of the child at the videotape deposition if:

          (i) The defendant is alleged to have inflicted
physical harm or is alleged to have threatened to inflict
physical harm upon the child, and physical or psychological harm
to the child is likely to occur if there is a face-to-face
confrontation of the child by defendant;

          (ii) The defendant's legal counsel will have
reasonable opportunity to confer with his client before and at
any time during the videotape deposition; and

          (iii) The defendant will have opportunity to view and
hear the proceedings while being taken.
     (e) A videotape deposition may be admitted at trial in
lieu of the direct testimony of the child, if the judge finds,
after hearing, that:

          (i) The visual and sound qualities of the videotape
are satisfactory;

          (ii)   The videotape is not misleading;

          (iii) All portions of the videotape that have been
ruled inadmissible have been deleted; and

           (iv) A potential physical or psychological harm to
the child is likely to occur if the child is required to testify
which would effectively render the child incapable to testify at
the trial.

     (f) Children unable to articulate what was done to them
will be permitted to demonstrate the sexual act or acts
committed against them with the aid of anatomically correct
dolls. Such demonstrations will be under the supervision of the
court and shall be videotaped to be viewed at trial, and shall
be received into evidence as demonstrative evidence.

     (g) Videotapes which are part of the court record are
subject to a protective order to preserve the privacy of the
child.

     (h) If the prosecutor elects to utilize a videotaped
deposition pursuant to this section, the child will not or is
unable to provide live testimony in accordance with W.S. 7-11-
409 and the videotape has been taken and is admissible, the
child may not testify in court without the consent of the
defendant.

     (j) The court may provide for the child to testify under
the conditions specified in W.S. 7-11-409 in lieu of a
videotaped deposition under this section. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to affect the accommodations
available under W.S. 7-11-409(b) for the child.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: Bowser v. State
Bowser v. State (2009) wyo · cites it 16× “Bowser’s right to confront witnesses against him as a result of failure to follow the requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-408 ? FACTS [¶ 3] On February 6, 2007, the State charged Mr.”
Maryland v. Craig (1990) scotus · cites it 2× “04 (7) to (10) (1987-1988); Wyo. Stat. § 7-11-408 (1987). [3] See Ala.”
Woyak v. State (2010) wyo · cites it 4× “[¶ 23] Our conclusion in this regard is buttressed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-408 (LexisNexis 2009).”
George Everette Tamblyn v. The State of Wyoming (2020) wyo · cites it 2× “2009), we concluded the district court erred in allowing the minor victim’s trial testimony to be taken via video deposition under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-408 and the seating arrangement at the video deposition violated Mr.”
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.