Opinion ID: 1630748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Husband/Wife Privilege

Text: For his final point on appeal, Ridling challenges five statements made by his wife, Lisa Graf, that were introduced over his objection. These statements are: 1. Lisa Graf questioned Ridling about whether he did anything to Baskett. Lisa told Ridling that she had told investigators some lies, specifically that they had not seen Baskett. Ridling responded by saying that's fine. We haven't. Lisa further recalled Ridling saying, once you tell the police something, never change your story. 2. On or about August 4, 2002, Lisa asked why Ridling's shoes were wet. Ridling responded that he went jogging, but Lisa asked several other follow-up questions. 3. When Lisa indicated that she was going to give a statement to Bobby Jordan, Ridling stated, No, you're not. You didn't do anything wrong and they just need to leave you alone. 4. Ridling wrote a letter to Lisa, saying, I can do better with you on my side, especially about Sunday, August 4th. You made it sound like I was gone four hours and come home guilty of something. 5. In another letter, dated November 26, 2002, Ridling wrote, I let you influence me too much. August 3rd you went crazy, but it won't happen again. According to Ridling, all of the communications were protected under Ark. R. Evid. 504 and do not fall under any exception. Ark. R. Evid. 504 provides in part: (a) Definition. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person. (b) General Rule of Privilege. An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent his spouse from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse. Statements made by one spouse to the other that are for the purpose of establishing an alibi are intended for publication to investigators and are not confidential. Findley v. State, 307 Ark. 53, 818 S.W.2d 242 (1991). A spouse's direction to another spouse to communicate a fabricated story to the police is intended for disclosure to a third-party and, hence, is not a privileged communication. David v. State, 286 Ark. 205, 691 S.W.2d 133 (1985). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Ridling's objection to the above statements and the comments contained in the letters. The statements were intended for Lisa to fabricate a story, to continue the fabrication, or to establish an alibi. The statements were not privileged.