Also known as: marital immunity rule · marital immunity · spousal immunity · interspousal immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An evidentiary privilege that prevents one spouse from being compelled to give adverse testimony against the other in a criminal proceeding. The privilege applies only while a valid marriage exists at the time testimony is sought and extends to events occurring before the marriage. In federal court the witness spouse alone holds the privilege and may choose to testify even over the defendant spouse's objection, while in most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may block the witness spouse's testimony.
A substantive rule barring one spouse from maintaining a tort action against the other for personal injuries sustained during the marriage. The rule is treated as a matter of family or tort law rather than procedure and may be displaced by choice-of-law analysis when the place of injury and the spouses' domicile differ.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
An evidentiary privilege that prevents one spouse from being compelled to give adverse testimony against the other in a criminal proceeding. The privilege applies only while a valid marriage exists at the time testimony is sought and extends to events occurring before the marriage. In federal court the witness spouse alone holds the privilege and may choose to testify even over the defendant spouse's objection, while in most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may block the witness spouse's testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Federal prosecutors subpoena Dana to testify against her husband Leo in a hacking prosecution. Dana and Leo married after the charged conduct but before trial. Dana wishes to refuse the subpoena. Because the case is in federal court, Dana alone decides whether to testify and may decline even though Leo objects.
Owen stands trial in state court for trafficking antiquities. The state calls his husband Liam to testify about conversations during their still-valid marriage. Liam wants to testify, but Owen objects. Under the majority state rule, Owen as the party spouse may invoke spousal immunity to prevent Liam from testifying at all.
In federal court the witness spouse alone holds the privilege and may choose to testify even if the defendant spouse objects. In most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may prevent the witness spouse from testifying regardless of the witness spouse's wishes.
Supporting sources
Yes. The privilege may be invoked as long as a valid marriage exists at the time testimony is sought, even if the underlying events or statements occurred before the marriage.
Supporting sources
A substantive rule barring one spouse from maintaining a tort action against the other for personal injuries sustained during the marriage. The rule is treated as a matter of family or tort law rather than procedure and may be displaced by choice-of-law analysis when the place of injury and the spouses' domicile differ.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Marilyn sues her husband Robert and his co-employers for injuries she suffered on the job. The defendants move to dismiss on the ground that Texas law bars one spouse from suing the other in tort. The court treats the marital immunity rule as an affirmative defense that must be pleaded rather than a jurisdictional bar appearing on the face of the petition.
A Wisconsin wife sues her husband in Wisconsin court for injuries sustained in a California car accident. California law would bar the suit between spouses, while Wisconsin law permits it. The court must decide whether the marital immunity rule of the place of injury or the law of the spouses' common domicile governs the action.
…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…
…that the plaintiff lacked capacity to bring a personal injury action against her husband, the defendants relied upon Texas interspousal immunity
…under New York law at that time, a wife could not sue her husband for negligence. Connecticut law, however, did not recognize spousal immunity
…one of the defendants. The conflict posed in that action was whether Florida's marital immunity law or New Jersey law abrogating
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 cooperation.
Supporting sources
Spousal immunity bars compelled adverse testimony by one spouse against the other in criminal cases and is held by either the witness spouse or the defendant spouse depending on jurisdiction. The marital communications privilege protects only confidential statements made during marriage and is generally held by both spouses.
Supporting sources
A legally recognized marriage must exist at the time the privilege is asserted. An attempted or void marriage, such as one entered while a prior marriage remains undissolved, will not support the privilege.
Supporting sources