People v. McCormack
278 AD 191, 104 N.Y.S.2d 139 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Threatening statements and aggressive actions made by one spouse to another during a boisterous assault are not confidential communications protected by marital privilege, as the circumstances surrounding such communications demonstrate they were not intended to be confidential.
Facts:
- On the evening of March 13, 1949, the defendant, McCormack, returned to his apartment while intoxicated.
- McCormack engaged in a quarrel with his wife, assaulting her, destroying furniture, and cutting clothing with a bayonet.
- While alone with his wife, McCormack brandished the bayonet and shouted threats, including, 'I am going to kill. I am going to kill everybody.'
- His wife warned him that their neighbor could hear everything, and McCormack then went into the public hall and plunged the bayonet into the neighbor's door.
- McCormack left the apartment and returned a short time later.
- Upon his return, in the presence of his wife and her cousin, Mrs. Day, McCormack announced, 'I just killed a man,' and produced the blood-stained bayonet.
- Shortly thereafter, the body of William Lexa, a stranger to McCormack, was found on the sidewalk near McCormack's home with a fatal stab wound.
Procedural Posture:
- McCormack was arrested for disorderly conduct based on his wife's complaint.
- He pleaded guilty in Magistrate's Court and received a suspended sentence.
- After police connected McCormack's wife's statements to the death of William Lexa, McCormack was re-arrested.
- McCormack was indicted and tried for murder in the first degree.
- A jury convicted McCormack of second-degree murder.
- McCormack (appellant) now appeals the judgment of conviction to this 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 marital privilege under New York Penal Law § 2445 bar a wife from testifying against her husband about threatening statements and actions he made while they were alone, when those statements and actions were part of a loud quarrel and assault against her?
Opinions:
Majority - Callahan, J.
No. The marital privilege does not bar the wife's testimony because the defendant's statements and actions were not confidential communications. The privilege only protects communications that spring from the confidence of the marital relation. The test is whether the intent exists to rely on the intimacy of the marriage. Here, the defendant's conduct was part of a boisterous and abusive attack on his wife, shouted so loudly she warned him the neighbors could hear. This indicates the communications were not intended to be confidential. Furthermore, cruel and accusatory treatment is not protected by the conjugal privilege, and the common-law exception allowing a spouse to testify about assaults against them supports the admission of this testimony, as it would be anomalous to allow it for an assault charge but not for a murder charge.
Dissenting - Heffernan, J.
Yes. The wife's testimony regarding statements made while she and the defendant were alone should have been barred as a confidential communication. Citing People v. Daghita, the dissent argues that the testimony was 'clearly incompetent' under the statute. The dissent also finds serious prejudicial error in the trial court's jury instruction on intoxication, stating that the judge's comment, 'A drunken man can form an intent to kill,' improperly took the ultimate question of the defendant's capacity to form intent away from the jury.
Concurring - Van Voorhis, J.
I concur in the result. While I agree with the majority's reasoning on the marital privilege issue, I believe the trial court did err in its instruction to the jury regarding intoxication. However, this error is not reversible because the evidence of the defendant's intoxication was meager, and his clear recollection of events from that night suggests he was not incapable of forming intent.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the marital communications privilege in New York, establishing that it is not an absolute bar. The court moved beyond a simple inquiry of whether spouses were alone, focusing instead on the intent and circumstances of the communication. By holding that abusive, threatening, and non-confidential statements made during a domestic assault are not privileged, the decision prevents the privilege from being used as a shield for spousal abuse. This precedent requires future courts to conduct a factual inquiry into the nature and method of a spousal communication to determine if it truly warrants protection, thereby narrowing the privilege to communications genuinely rooted in marital confidence.
