Opinion ID: 1395325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Extrajudicial Statements of Spouse

Text: Wrapped in the cloak of the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, the defendant's second contention is that the evidence derived from his wife's statements to the police should have been excluded because of the spousal privilege. Under this theory, the defendant argues Mrs. Bradshaw told the police his whereabouts because she was not informed of her right to refuse to assist the officers. The defendant further claims there would have been no arrest or confiscation of evidence without the assistance of Mrs. Bradshaw's statements. We find no merit to these arguments. Initially, outside the context of custodial interrogation, we explicitly reject any legal rule that would require the police to give warnings to a spouse of a defendant regarding the spouse's privilege not to talk to the police. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) (knowledge of right to consent not a controlling factor). Similarly, absent a constitutional violation, the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine has no applicability. See Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974) (absent a constitutional violation, Court found inapposite principle of poisonous tree); State v. Goodmon, 170 W.Va. 123, 131, 290 S.E.2d 260, 268 (1981) (poisonous tree doctrine did not bar admission of knife where confession was found to be voluntary). Therefore, the only remaining issue before this Court is whether the extrajudicial statement of the defendant's spouse is admissible testimony. Although the extent of the spousal testimony privilege is fairly liberal when it concerns the exclusion of in-court testimony, we have not held that the spousal privilege extends beyond the confines of the trial court's environment. In fact, we specifically stated in State v. Bailey, supra , that a spouse's statements to police during the course of an investigation are not protected by the marital privilege. [27] We reaffirm Bailey and hold that evidence derived from statements by a spouse to police during the course of an investigation do not fall within the marital privilege exclusion. [28]