§ 2611.7.Situations Where Alternative Method Testimony Permitted
Chapter 40: Oklahoma Evidence Code · Last amended November 1, 2008 · Last verified August 3, 2026
In one sentenceSection 2611.7 allows alternative-method testimony in a criminal case only on clear and convincing evidence that testifying in the open forum, or face-to-face with the defendant, would cause serious emotional trauma impairing the child's ability to communicate, and applies a lower best-interests standard in noncriminal cases.
A.In a criminal proceeding, the judge or presiding officer may allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method only in the following situations:
1.The child may testify otherwise than in an open forum in the presence and full view of the finder of fact if the judge or presiding officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child's ability to communicate with the finder of fact if required to testify in the open forum; and
2.The child may testify other than face-to-face with the defendant if the judge or presiding officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child's ability to communicate with the finder of fact if required to be confronted face-to-face by the defendant.
B.In a criminal proceeding, the child may have an advocate appointed by the court to monitor the potential for emotional trauma. The advocate shall be a registered professional social worker, psychologist, or psychiatrist.
C.In a noncriminal proceeding, the judge or presiding officer may allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method if the judge or presiding officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence that allowing the child to testify by an alternative method is necessary to serve the best interests of the child or enable the child to communicate with the finder of fact. In making the finding, the judge or presiding officer shall consider:
Added by Laws 2003, HB 1635, c. 405, §5, eff. 11/1/2003; Amended by Laws 2008, SB 1839, c.
111, §2, eff. 11/1/2008.
Plain-English Summary
Subsection A sets a demanding, two-part standard for criminal cases, echoing the constitutional test courts apply when weighing a child witness's protection against a defendant's confrontation rights: a child may testify other than in the open forum, or other than face-to-face with the defendant, only if clear and convincing evidence shows the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child's ability to communicate with the factfinder. Subsection B lets the court appoint an advocate -- a registered social worker, psychologist, or psychiatrist -- to monitor the child for that trauma in a criminal case.
Subsection C sets a different, lower bar for noncriminal proceedings: alternative-method testimony is allowed on a preponderance of the evidence that it's necessary to serve the child's best interests or let the child communicate with the factfinder, weighing the nature of the proceeding, the child's age and maturity, the child's relationship to the parties, the degree of potential emotional trauma, and any other relevant factor.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a court find before letting a child testify outside the defendant's presence in a criminal case?
Clear and convincing evidence that testifying face-to-face with the defendant would cause the child serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child's ability to communicate with the factfinder.
Is there someone appointed to look out for the child's welfare during this process?
In a criminal proceeding, yes -- Section 2611.7(B) allows a court-appointed advocate who is a registered social worker, psychologist, or psychiatrist to monitor the potential for emotional trauma.
Is the standard different in a noncriminal case, like a custody proceeding?
Yes. Section 2611.7(C) applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence, best-interests standard in noncriminal proceedings, rather than the clear-and-convincing standard used in criminal cases.
What factors does a court weigh under the noncriminal standard?
The nature of the proceeding, the child's age and maturity, the child's relationship to the parties, the degree of potential emotional trauma, and any other relevant factor.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes, enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature.
Last verified August 3, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:clear and convincing evidence child witness traumaalternative method testimony standard oklahoma12 O.S. § 2611.7child witness closed circuit testimony oklahoma