Also known as: spousal immunities · interspousal immunity · marital immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An evidentiary privilege that bars compulsion of one spouse to give adverse testimony against the other in a criminal proceeding. The privilege applies only while a valid marriage exists and may reach events occurring before the marriage. In federal court the privilege belongs solely to the witness spouse, who may elect to testify or refuse, while the defendant spouse holds no power to block willing testimony except as to confidential marital communications.
An evidentiary privilege that bars compulsion of one spouse to give adverse testimony against the other in a criminal proceeding. The privilege applies only while a valid marriage exists and may reach events occurring before the marriage. In federal court the privilege belongs solely to the witness spouse, who may elect to testify or refuse, while the defendant spouse holds no power to block willing testimony except as to confidential marital communications.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A common-law doctrine that prevents one spouse from maintaining a tort action against the other for personal injuries. The doctrine rests on the historical unity of husband and wife and on policies favoring marital harmony. Most jurisdictions have abolished or severely limited the immunity, allowing interspousal tort suits in at least some circumstances.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A common-law doctrine that prevents one spouse from maintaining a tort action against the other for personal injuries. The doctrine rests on the historical unity of husband and wife and on policies favoring marital harmony. Most jurisdictions have abolished or severely limited the immunity, allowing interspousal tort suits in at least some circumstances.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Federal prosecutors subpoena Luis to testify against his husband Daniel in an insider-trading prosecution. Luis states he feels morally obligated to cooperate. Daniel objects and asserts spousal immunity. The court overrules the objection because the privilege belongs only to Luis, who may choose to testify even over Daniel's objection.
In a state prosecution Owen faces trafficking charges. The state calls his husband Liam to testify about conversations during their still-valid marriage. Liam wants to testify, but Owen objects. Because the state follows the majority rule vesting the privilege in the party spouse, Owen may invoke spousal immunity to prevent Liam from testifying at all.
The privilege belongs solely to the witness spouse. That spouse may choose to testify against the defendant spouse or refuse to do so. The defendant spouse cannot invoke the privilege to block willing testimony.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under the majority state rule the privilege is held by the party spouse, who may block the witness spouse from testifying regardless of the witness spouse's wishes.
Supporting sources
Yes. The privilege may be invoked as to matters occurring before the marriage provided a valid marriage exists at the time testimony is sought.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege continues as long as the parties remain legally married. Separation or the filing of divorce proceedings does not end the marriage or the availability of the privilege.
Supporting sources
A plaintiff injured in an automobile accident sues her husband in Oklahoma state court. The defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that Texas interspousal immunity bars the claim. The court denies the motion because Oklahoma has abolished spousal immunity and permits one spouse to maintain a tort action against the other.
An employee terminated after reporting suspected criminal activity sues her former employer for wrongful discharge. The employer argues that related family-law principles should bar the claim. The court rejects the argument, noting that California long ago abolished spousal immunity for torts and no longer shields intra-family conduct from civil liability on unity grounds.
A Wisconsin domiciliary injured by her husband in Illinois brings a tort suit in Wisconsin. The defendant invokes Illinois law recognizing spousal immunity. The court applies Wisconsin law, which has abandoned the doctrine, and permits the action to proceed.
Yes. Most jurisdictions have abolished or severely limited the doctrine, allowing one spouse to sue the other in tort in at least some circumstances.
Supporting sources
…for loss of consortium ( Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 389-404); and abrogated the rule of interspousal immunity for negligent torts. ( Klein v. Klein (1962) 58 Cal.2d 692, 697-699 [26 Cal. Rptr. 102, 376 P.2d 70].) Every one of these landmark decisions required a difficult choice among competing…