Also known as: spousal immunity · spousal immunity doctrine · interspousal immunity · interspousal tort immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An evidentiary privilege that prevents one spouse from being compelled to testify against the other in a criminal proceeding. The privilege applies only while a valid marriage exists and may cover events that occurred before the marriage. In federal court the witness spouse alone holds the privilege and may choose to testify or refuse, while in most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may block the witness spouse from testifying.
Dana married Leo after the alleged hacking but before his federal trial. Prosecutors subpoena Dana to describe Leo's pre-marriage boasts about bypassing security systems. Dana tells the court she does not want to testify. Leo objects and asks the court to order her to the stand. The court permits Dana to refuse because the federal rule gives the witness spouse sole control over whether to provide adverse testimony.
Owen faces state criminal charges for trafficking antiquities. Prosecutors call his husband Liam to describe conversations during their still-valid marriage. Liam states he is willing to testify even though the marriage is strained. Owen objects and invokes the privilege. The court sustains the objection because the state follows the majority rule that lets the defendant spouse block all adverse testimony from the witness spouse.
Ursula faces state manslaughter charges arising from a construction site collapse. She married Walker weeks before trial after years of cohabitation. Prosecutors subpoena Walker to recount Ursula's pre-marriage admissions about safety shortcuts. Ursula objects on spousal immunity grounds and moves to quash the subpoena. Walker states he is willing to testify. The court grants the motion because a legally recognized marriage existed when the subpoena issued, allowing the defendant spouse to prevent the testimony.
In this personal injury action, plaintiff Marilyn S. White alleged that she was a passenger in a truck driven by defendant Robert W. White. They were traveling south on Interstate 35 near the city of Louisville, Texas, when the defendant lost control of his truck, overturning it and causing injury to her body. The petition alleged that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by negligent acts of the defendant. He failed to keep a proper lookout for vehicles properly on the highway. He followed the vehicle in front of him too closely in violation of specific Texas statutes which were pleaded and attached. Robert White drove his vehicle into a space between the divided roadway and failed to keep his vehicle only upon the righthand roadway in violation of another specific Texas statute which was pleaded. He drove his vehicle at a speed that was greater than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances in violation of another specific Texas statute which was also pleaded and attached. The plaintiff pleaded that as a result of said negligent actions she suffered broken bones and other injuries to the body resulting in permanent disability, medical expenses, and lost income with her damages totaling some $200,000.00. The petition further alleged that at the time of the accident the defendants Robert W. White and Edward White were engaged in a joint venture or partnership operating a long-haul truck tractor-trailer. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants to help operate the truck. At the time of the accident she was within the scope of her employment. The defendants failed to carry Workmen’s Compensation Insurance, and that she has elected to proceed in the District Court. Attached to the petition and made a part thereof was the Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance. The Corporation Commission of Oklahoma certified that Employers Casualty Corporation had issued to Edward White of Fort Cobb, Oklahoma an insurance policy covering the obligations imposed upon the insured by the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle provisions. Employers Casualty Corporation is not a party to this appeal because the cause against it was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff. In response to the petition the defendants Robert W. White and Edward White filed special demurrers. They demurred to the petition on the grounds that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue and that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In arguing that the demurrers should be sustained both Robert and Edward White argued that the plaintiff Marilyn S. White lacks the capacity to sue because she is the wife of Robert W. White and under the laws of Texas one spouse may not bring a personal injury action against the other. This fact does not appear on the face of the petition. The defendants also argued that in fact the plaintiff was not their employee but was a co-employer. They relied upon facts which do not appear upon the face of the petition. The trial court sustained the demurrers to the petition and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, and the matter came before the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for review.
The witness spouse alone holds the privilege. That spouse may refuse to testify against the defendant spouse but may also choose to testify even if the defendant objects. The defendant spouse has no power to block the testimony except as to confidential marital communications.
Supporting sources
Yes. The privilege turns on the existence of a valid marriage at the time testimony is sought, not on when the underlying events occurred. A witness spouse may therefore invoke the privilege regarding pre-marriage conduct so long as the couple remains married when the criminal proceeding takes place.
Supporting sources
The outcome depends on the jurisdiction. In federal court the witness spouse may testify over the defendant's objection. In most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may prevent the witness spouse from testifying even if the witness is willing.
Supporting sources
No. Prior voluntary statements to law enforcement do not waive the privilege against compelled testimony at trial. The witness spouse retains the right to refuse to testify in court even after earlier disclosures, because the privilege is determined at the time testimony is sought.
Supporting sources