Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Privileges and Immunities

As I've mentioned before, doing this blog is somewhat of a humbling experience, because I'm constantly reminded of how much I don't know. I got another reminder of that last week, when one of the lawyers here walks into my office and tells me that he's got a case where the prosecution wants to call his client's wife to testify that the defendant gave her a forged check.  "Can she testify about that?" he asks.

My first instinct is to tell him she can, because as I recall Ohio's rule prohibits a spouse from testifying only if the spouse doesn't want to.  In fact, that's what the prosecutor and a couple of other lawyers hanging around at the last pretrial had told him.  "That doesn't sound right, though," he complained to me.  "What about the marital privilege?"

If you're thinking, "Isn't that what we were talking about?" the answer is no, it's not.  Turns out there are two separate concepts at work here:  spousal privilege and spousal competency.  Spousal competency is governed by Evidence Rule 601(B); it provides generally that all witnesses are deemed competent, then makes several exceptions, one of them being a spouse testifying against the other unless it involves a crime against the testifying spouse or any of the children, or if the spouse elects to testify.

Well, that takes care of that, right?  Wrong.  There's also the concept of spousal privilege, which is provided by Revised Code 2945.42.  (The statute also provides for a definition of competency, but that's superseded by Rule 601).  As you can see, the privilege extends to communications and acts between the spouses:  neither spouse can testify about them unless a third party witnesses them.  Of course, there's also the exception for crimes committed by one spouse against the other, or the children of either.

The case that does the best job of explaining all this is the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. AdamsonThat case represented the flip side of my friend's situation:  the wife could testify about the husband's acts (killing someone) because there were other people present, but the conviction was reversed because the court never explained to her that she could refuse to testify under 601(B). 

While the concepts of privilege and competency do overlap to a degree, the overlap is by no means complete.  If the parties are no longer married, the ex-spouse is certainly competent to testify, but the privilege still applies:  she can't testify to any acts or communications that occurred during the marriage.  On the other hand, the privilege only keeps her from testifying to certain things; competency keeps her from testifying at all if she doesn't want to.  And the privilege only applies to those acts or communications that occurred during the marriage; the competency rule prevents a spouse from testifying about anything, even if it occurred prior to the marriage.

So, armed with this information, my friend went off to do battle with the Forces of Darkness, and wound up getting a nolle.  The interesting part of this story is that he didn't find out that the witness was his client's wife until his client casually mentioned it a day or two before the trial.  So from now on I guess I'll go over the state's witness with my client, name by name, to make sure he's not married to any of them.

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it
  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives