 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Glover v. State11/5/2004
FOR PUBLICATION
Case Summary
John Glover brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the testimony of his wife, Bobbie Glover, in his trial for the murder of Tammy Gibbs. We reverse.
Issue
We address one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erroneously found that the spousal privilege did not apply to Bobbie's testimony.
Facts
Glover and Bobbie were lawfully married in Kentucky in February 2002. On September 17, 2002, Gibbs' boyfriend found her dead body floating facedown in her bathtub. An autopsy revealed that she had been strangled. Two weeks later, Bobbie went to the police station and told officers that Glover admitted to her that he had killed Gibbs. According to Bobbie, Glover demonstrated how he had placed his hand around Gibbs' neck and placed her in a bathtub full of water.
The State charged Glover with Gibbs' murder in October 2002 and listed his wife as a State's witness on the charging information. In June 2003, Glover filed a motion to suppress Bobbie's testimony pursuant to the spousal privilege codified at Indiana Code Section 34-46-3-1. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing. Specifically, the court found that the only purpose of the Glovers' marriage was to assist Bobbie, who immigrated to the United States from India in 1999, to remain in this country legally. Appellant's App. p. 84. The court concluded that under these circumstances, where the purpose of the marriage was to defraud the federal government, even though the parties were legally married, they were "in no sense of the word . . . spouses," and the spousal privilege did not apply. Appellant's App. p. 84. Glover appeals.
Analysis
Glover's sole argument is that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the spousal privilege to Bobbie's testimony. Indiana has long protected the privacy of spousal communications. Russell v. State, 743 N.E.2d 269, 271 (Ind. 2001). Over one hundred years ago, our supreme court recognized that " here the criminal, in seeking advice and consolation, lays open his heart to his wife, the law regards the sacredness of their relation, and will not permit her to make known what he communicated, even as it will not ask him to disclose it himself." Beyerline v. State, 147 Ind. 125, 130, 45 N.E. 772, 774 (1897). "Strong public policy grounds favor promotion and preservation of marital confidences even if truthful and invaluable testimony in certain cases is excluded." Shepherd v. State, 257 Ind. 229, 232, 277 N.E.2d 165, 167 (1971).
The spousal privilege, which is today codified at Indiana Code Section 34-46-3-1(4), provides as follows:
Except as otherwise provided by statute, the following persons shall not be required to testify regarding the following communications:
Husband and wife, as to communications made to each other.
The spousal privilege has been interpreted as protecting only those communications passing from one marriage partner to the other because of the confidence resulting from their intimate marriage relationship. Beyerline, 147 Ind. at 130, 45 N.E. at 774. The spousal privilege is subject to waiver where the defendant gives direct testimony concerning his communication with his spouse during the time in question, Taylor v. State, 567 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1991).
The privilege is also subject to certain other well-established exceptions. For example, where the spousal communication is made in the presence of a third person, our supreme court has held that no privilege exists because of the lack of confidentiality. Holt v. State, 481 N.E.2d
Page 1 2 3 Indiana Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|