People v. Melski
176 N.E.2d 81, 217 N.Y.S.2d 65, 10 N.Y.2d 78 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Communications or acts between spouses that occur in the presence of third parties are not protected by the marital communications privilege because the presence of others negates the presumption of confidentiality.
Facts:
- The defendant drove several friends to Batavia, New York.
- The defendant's friends, allegedly with his help as a lookout, stole guns and ammunition from a sporting goods store.
- Following the theft, the group returned to the defendant's home in Buffalo with the stolen guns.
- Early the next morning, the defendant's wife entered the kitchen of their home to get milk for her baby.
- The wife observed her husband in the kitchen with his friends and the stolen guns laid out on a table.
- Before trial, the defendant voluntarily told a State trooper that his wife had entered the kitchen, seen the guns, and told the men to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was tried for grand larceny, second degree, in a New York trial court.
- During the trial, the prosecution called the defendant's wife to testify.
- The defense objected to the wife's testimony, asserting the marital communications privilege under Penal Law § 2445.
- The trial court overruled the objection and permitted the wife's testimony.
- The jury convicted the defendant.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting his wife's 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 marital communications privilege prohibit a wife from testifying against her husband about his criminal actions when she observed those actions in their home in the presence of his accomplices?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
No. The marital communications privilege does not prohibit a wife from testifying against her husband regarding his actions when they were performed in the presence of third parties. The privilege, as codified by statute, protects only communications that are confidential and induced by the marital relationship, not all interactions between spouses. While acts can be considered 'communications,' the presence of third parties creates a strong presumption that the communication was not intended to be confidential. In this case, the defendant's 'disclosive act' occurred in the plain view of his accomplices, defeating any claim of confidentiality. Furthermore, the defendant's own voluntary pre-trial disclosure of the event to a State trooper confirms that the communication was never intended to be confidential. The privilege must be construed narrowly as it suppresses relevant testimony, and its application here is not supported by the public policy of promoting marital confidence.
Dissenting - Desmond, C.J.
Yes. The marital communications privilege should prohibit the wife's testimony. Under the precedent set in People v. Daghita, knowledge derived from observing a spouse's 'disclosive acts' is a protected communication. The wife's discovery of the crime by observing her husband with stolen goods in their home was an essentially confidential communication arising from the marital relationship. The presence of the accomplices does not destroy the confidentiality, because their presence was an integral part of the criminal fact being communicated. Allowing this testimony overrules Daghita and undermines the strong public policy of protecting the sanctity of the marriage relation from being violated by compelled testimony.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the marital communications privilege in New York by emphasizing the requirement of confidentiality. It establishes a strong, albeit rebuttable, presumption that any communication or act made in the presence of a third party is not privileged. By distinguishing People v. Daghita, the court limited the 'disclosive acts' doctrine, making it more difficult for defendants to shield criminal activity conducted with accomplices from spousal testimony. This ruling makes it clear that the privilege is not a blanket ban on spousal testimony but a specific protection for communications genuinely induced by the confidential nature of the marital bond.
