Jurcoane v. Superior Court
2001 Daily Journal DAR 11982, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483, 93 Cal. App. 4th 886 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The spousal testimonial privilege in California is governed strictly by statute, and courts may not create a judicial exception to compel testimony based on a finding that a legally valid marriage is no longer viable or intact.
Facts:
- Susan Jurcoane and Josif Jurcoane were married in 1976 and never divorced.
- On July 4, 1984, Lloyd Bryden and Alice McCannel were murdered.
- Shortly after the killings, Josif Jurcoane told Susan that his gun was used in the murders and he was leaving for Mexico.
- Josif fled California immediately after the killings.
- For the 17 years following the murders and Josif's flight, Susan had no contact with him.
- In 2001, Josif was returned to California to face murder charges for the 1984 killings.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged Josif Jurcoane with two counts of murder in Los Angeles County.
- The prosecution subpoenaed Susan Jurcoane, Josif's wife, to testify at his preliminary hearing.
- At the hearing before a magistrate, Susan Jurcoane asserted the spousal testimonial privilege under Evidence Code §§ 970-971.
- The magistrate, acting as the trial court of first instance for this issue, denied Susan's claim of privilege, ruling that the privilege does not apply where a marital relationship is no longer viable.
- Susan Jurcoane sought a writ of review from the California Court of Appeal to overturn the magistrate's order compelling her testimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the California spousal testimonial privilege, as defined by the Evidence Code, permit a court to create a judicial exception that would compel a spouse to testify against their legally married partner in a criminal proceeding because the marital relationship is no longer viable?
Opinions:
Majority - Ortega, Acting P. J.
No. The California spousal testimonial privilege does not permit a court to create a judicial exception for a non-viable marriage. The privileges set forth in the California Evidence Code are legislative creations, and courts lack the power to expand them or recognize implied, unwritten exceptions. The relevant statutes (§§ 970-971) grant a privilege to a 'married person,' and the code lists specific, exhaustive exceptions in § 972. A 'non-viable marriage' exception is not included. Unlike the federal system, which allows for common law development of privileges, California's statutory scheme is definitive. Since Susan and Josif Jurcoane are legally married and no statutory exception applies, her assertion of the privilege is valid.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of legislative supremacy over judicial interpretation in the area of evidentiary privileges in California. It establishes a bright-line rule that the legal status of a marriage, not its functional viability, is the sole determinant for invoking the spousal testimonial privilege. The ruling prevents lower courts from engaging in fact-intensive inquiries into the health of a marriage, promoting predictability but potentially frustrating the privilege's purpose of preserving marital harmony in cases where no harmony is left to preserve. This case sharply contrasts California's strict statutory approach with the more flexible, common-law-based federal approach to privileges.
Unlock the full brief for Jurcoane v. Superior Court