People v. Howard
134 A.D.3d 1153, 21 N.Y.S.3d 423 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The spousal privilege protecting confidential marital communications does not apply to statements that are threats of criminal activity or personal wrongs by one spouse against the other, nor does it apply to communications made in the presence of third parties.
Facts:
- The marriage between the defendant and his wife was deteriorating.
- Defendant wanted to relocate to Colorado, while his wife wished to remain in their marital home in New York.
- As their relationship worsened, defendant told his wife multiple times that he would burn the house down to prevent her from keeping it when they separated.
- Several of these threats were made in the presence of other people, including mutual friends and the couple’s children.
- The defendant's computer history showed numerous searches in the weeks before the fire for topics like 'causes of house fires,' 'grease fires,' and 'untraceable fire starters.'
- Two days before the fire, the defendant was found cleaning up a large oil spill in the kitchen after a failed attempt to do something, telling his wife, 'Well, never mind, it didn’t work anyway.'
- The marital home was destroyed by a fire that an investigator determined was caused by human action.
- After the fire, the defendant submitted an insurance claim for his share of the policy proceeds.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged with arson in the third degree and insurance fraud in the second degree.
- A jury trial was conducted in the County Court of Clinton County, a trial-level court.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting the defendant on both charges.
- Defendant moved to set aside the verdict, but the County Court denied the motion.
- The County Court sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms and ordered him to pay restitution.
- Defendant (as appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
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 spousal privilege, which protects confidential communications made during a marriage, apply to a spouse's threats to burn down the marital home to prevent the other spouse from taking possession of it upon separation, particularly when some threats were made in the presence of third parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Garry, J.
No. The spousal privilege does not apply to these statements. The privilege is intended to protect communications made in confidence that are induced by the affection and trust of the marital relationship, not to shield threats or plans for criminal acts by one spouse against the other. The court reasoned that the privilege was never designed to forbid inquiry into personal wrongs committed by one spouse against the other. Defendant's statements were not expressions of marital confidence but were threats of criminal activity directed at his wife's interests. Furthermore, the court held that any privilege that might have existed was waived for the statements made in the presence of third parties, as such communications are, by definition, not confidential.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the specific limitations of the spousal communications privilege in New York, clarifying that its scope is not absolute. The ruling establishes that the nature and context of the communication are critical; threats of harm or criminal acts against a spouse's interests fall outside the privilege's protection because they are antithetical to the marital confidence the rule is meant to foster. This case serves as a clear precedent that the privilege cannot be used as a shield for domestic intimidation or criminal plotting, significantly impacting how evidence is handled in cases involving intra-familial crimes like arson motivated by marital disputes.
