Also known as: interspousal immunity · interspousal tort immunity · spousal immunity doctrine · spousal immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A rule of evidence 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 reach events that occurred before the marriage. In federal court the witness spouse alone holds the privilege and may choose to testify or refuse. 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 subpoenaed Dana to describe Leo's pre-marriage boasts. Dana refused to testify. Because the case is in federal court, Dana alone decides whether to testify against Leo. Leo cannot force her to take the stand or prevent her from testifying if she later changes her mind.
Owen faced state trafficking charges. Prosecutors called his husband Liam to recount conversations during their still-valid marriage. Liam wanted to testify, but Owen objected. Under the majority state rule the defendant spouse holds the privilege, so Owen may block Liam from testifying even though Liam is willing.
Prosecutors subpoenaed Alex to testify about events that occurred before Alex married the defendant Jordan. The underlying conduct predated the marriage by two years. Alex invoked the privilege. Because a valid marriage existed at the time of trial, the privilege applied and Alex could not be compelled to testify even though the events predated the marriage.
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.
View caseThe 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.
Supporting sources
Yes. The privilege may be invoked as long as a valid marriage exists at the time testimony is sought, regardless of when the underlying events took place.
Supporting sources
In federal court the witness spouse controls the privilege. In most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may prevent the witness spouse from testifying even if the witness wishes to cooperate.
Supporting sources
Spousal immunity bars compelled testimony against a spouse in a criminal case. A separate marital-communications privilege protects only confidential statements made during the marriage.
Supporting sources