Appellant's contention that his interspousal confidential communications privilege was violated is controlled by the holding in Church. Because appellant's objection at trial addressed only his testimonial privilege, his claim based on a violation of his interspousal confidential communications privilege is procedurally barred. 20 Va. App. Conduct which does not convey information to the other spouse, such as a husband's beating of his wife and daughter, is not privileged. We find appellant's argument that by placing his penis in his daughter's mouth he communicated privileged information to his wife is meritless.
Admissibility depends on whether the communication was intended to be secret.
Accordingly, appellant's conviction is affirmed.