Also known as: marital immunities · interspousal immunity · spousal immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A privilege in criminal proceedings that prevents one spouse from being compelled to testify against the other. In federal court the privilege belongs to the witness spouse alone, who may refuse to testify or choose to testify even over the defendant spouse's objection. In most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may block the witness spouse from testifying.
A privilege in criminal proceedings that prevents one spouse from being compelled to testify against the other. In federal court the privilege belongs to the witness spouse alone, who may refuse to testify or choose to testify even over the defendant spouse's objection. In most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may block the witness spouse from testifying.
A substantive rule barring one spouse from maintaining a tort action against the other for personal injuries. The rule may be invoked as an affirmative defense and raises choice-of-law questions when spouses are domiciled in one state and the injury occurs in another.
A substantive rule barring one spouse from maintaining a tort action against the other for personal injuries. The rule may be invoked as an affirmative defense and raises choice-of-law questions when spouses are domiciled in one state and the injury occurs in another.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Miles Montgomery faces federal embezzlement charges. Prosecutors subpoena his wife Madison Meyers to describe conversations about the scheme. Madison tells the court she prefers not to testify. Because the privilege belongs to her alone in federal court, the judge sustains her refusal even though Miles objects.
Marcus Mitchell stands trial in state court for insurance fraud. The prosecution calls his husband Michael Miller to recount statements made during the marriage. Michael wants to testify, but Marcus objects. Under the state rule that gives the privilege to the defendant spouse, the court bars Michael from testifying.
4 common questions
The witness spouse alone holds the privilege. That spouse may refuse to testify against the defendant spouse or may 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 may be invoked as long as a valid marriage exists at the time testimony is sought. It reaches testimony about matters that occurred before the marriage as well as during it.
Supporting sources
In federal court the witness spouse controls the privilege and may testify voluntarily. 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
No. The privilege is determined at the time testimony is compelled in court. Earlier out-of-court disclosures do not automatically waive the right to refuse compelled testimony at trial.
Supporting sources
Marilyn White sues her husband Robert and his business partners for injuries sustained at work. The defendants move to dismiss on the ground that Texas law prevents one spouse from suing the other in tort. The court treats the marital relationship as an affirmative defense that must be pleaded rather than decided on demurrer.
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 caseA Wisconsin couple is involved in a California car accident. The wife sues her husband in Wisconsin for negligence. California law would bar the suit under its marital immunity rule, while Wisconsin permits it. The court must decide whether the law of the place of injury or the law of the spouses' domicile governs the immunity question.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Haumschild, and her husband were domiciled in Wisconsin at all relevant times. Wisconsin is both the state of the forum and of the domicile while California is the state where the alleged wrong was committed. While the couple was traveling in California, Mrs. Haumschild sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident that was allegedly caused by her husband's negligence. She subsequently commenced an action in Wisconsin circuit court against her husband and Continental Casualty Company, his insurer, seeking damages for those injuries. The defendants asserted that California law barred a wife from suing her husband in tort and therefore precluded recovery. The circuit court rendered judgment against the plaintiff on that ground. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The appeal was argued before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on March 2, 1959. On April 10, 1959, the court reversed the judgment in an opinion authored by Justice Currie, with Justice Fairchild filing a separate concurrence joined by Justice Brown.
View case…the tort was committed, citing Goodrich, Conflict of Laws (1st ed.), p. 188, sec. 92. From this premise it was further held that interspousal immunity from tort liability necessarily is governed by the law of the place of injury. This principle of conflict of laws has been consistently applied in all subsequent interspousal actions in…