State v. Christian
267 Conn. 710, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 55, 841 A.2d 1158 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The marital communications privilege, protecting confidential communications between spouses made during a valid marriage, is recognized as a common law principle in Connecticut and survives the dissolution of the marriage, even if the marriage is experiencing difficulties at the time of the communication.
Facts:
- On the evening of March 17, 2000, Bruce R. Christian, Jr. (the defendant), Victoria Ryan (the victim), and Alexander Imperatrice consumed alcohol at a bar in Southwick, Massachusetts.
- Around 11:45 p.m., Christian and Ryan drove off from Ryan's Enfield residence in Ryan's car, with Ryan driving.
- Sometime after midnight, Debra Wilson observed a speeding car, without headlights, which subsequently crashed into a creek under a railroad overpass in Suffield.
- Wilson heard a male voice from the driver's seat of the crashed car respond to her questions, stating "We're okay" and that there were two people in the car.
- Officer Shawn Nelson and Sergeant David Bourque arrived at the scene and found Christian unconscious in the creek, leaning against the open driver's side door, and Ryan in the passenger seat with her body slumped forward.
- Emergency medical technicians Deidre Vorih, Nicole Ruggiero, and paramedic Tonya Ford, while transporting Christian to the hospital, were repeatedly told by Christian that he had been driving the car at the time of the accident.
- At Hartford Hospital, Christian's blood alcohol level was 0.20 (twice the legal limit), and he sustained injuries consistent with a driver wearing a seatbelt, while Ryan was pronounced dead from multiple blunt traumatic injuries.
- Joan Christian, Bruce Christian's wife, visited him at the hospital, and he quietly told her he had been driving the vehicle, making motions with his hands as though operating a steering wheel.
Procedural Posture:
- Bruce R. Christian, Jr. was charged by substitute information with manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle, operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and reckless driving.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where Joan Christian (defendant's wife) testified over the defendant's objection regarding his confidential marital communications.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts.
- The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, imposing a total effective sentence of ten years and seven months imprisonment, suspended after eight years and seven months, five years probation, and a $500 fine.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal to itself pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.
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, as a common law principle, exist in Connecticut, and if so, does it apply to confidential communications made during a valid but rocky marriage, thus preventing a spouse from testifying about those communications?
Opinions:
Majority - Katz, J.
Yes, the marital communications privilege is a recognized fixture of Connecticut common law and applies to the defendant's confidential communication to his wife made during their marriage, even though the marriage was experiencing difficulties. The court formally recognizes the marital communications privilege as a common law principle in Connecticut, aligning with all other jurisdictions. It distinguishes this privilege from the adverse spousal testimony privilege (codified in § 54-84a), noting the marital communications privilege's purpose is to foster marital relationships by encouraging confidential communication, protecting "information privately disclosed between husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship." The court finds that the privilege should be recognized if it meets the four Wigmore conditions: (1) communications originate in confidence, (2) confidentiality is essential to the relationship, (3) the relationship ought to be fostered, and (4) injury from disclosure outweighs benefit to litigation. The court clarifies that the privilege attaches to communications made during a legally valid marriage, and survives the marriage's dissolution (divorce or death), focusing on the marital relationship at the time the communication was made, not at the time of trial. Therefore, even a "rocky" marriage qualifies. Regarding confidentiality, the court adopts an objective test: a communication is confidential if the holder had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. The state, as the party seeking to admit the communication, bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of confidentiality. The trial court failed to make a finding on confidentiality, thus improperly admitting the testimony. Despite this error, the court found it harmless because: (1) the wife's testimony was cumulative of similar statements the defendant made to emergency personnel, and (2) there was an abundance of physical and testimonial evidence indicating Christian was the driver (Wilson's observation, Bourque's accident reconstruction, Kwasnoski's expert testimony, and consistent injury patterns). The defendant's constitutional right to confrontation was not violated regarding the exclusion of Bobryk's testimony, as extensive cross-examination of Joan Christian regarding her bias was permitted, and Bobryk's testimony would have been cumulative. The exclusion of emergency medical "run sheets" as prior inconsistent statements or business records was also harmless, as the EMTs acknowledged the "confused" notation, making the sheets cumulative.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for Connecticut law, as it formally recognizes the marital communications privilege as a common law right, aligning the state with virtually every other jurisdiction. This decision provides a robust legal framework for protecting the sanctity of marital confidences, emphasizing that the privilege attaches at the time of the communication, regardless of subsequent marital strife or divorce. It clarifies the distinction between the marital communications privilege and the adverse spousal testimony privilege, reinforcing the policy goal of fostering open communication within marriages. However, the ruling also underscores that even significant evidentiary errors can be deemed harmless if the other evidence is overwhelming, reminding litigators of the importance of building strong cases beyond any single piece of testimony.
