Opinion ID: 1806165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Spouse's testimony.

Text: The defendant's wife was permitted to testify, over defense objections, as to the defendant's response to her question of where the change had come from. She testified that the two young accomplices were in the bedroom at the time defendant told her the money had come from two break-ins, one at the University Inn and one at the Vaslow home. Thus it is apparent the wife's testimony is very important to the state's case as being corroborative of the two young boys' story. Sec. 885.18, Stats., provides, in part: A husband or wife shall be a competent witness for or against the other in all cases, except that neither one without the consent of the other, during marriage, nor afterwards, shall be permitted to disclose a private communication, made during marriage, by one to the other, when such private communication is privileged.... (Emphasis supplied.) The trial court correctly overruled defense objection to this testimony. The reason for so doing was that the statute only prevented one spouse from disclosing a private communication from the other spouse. The trial court correctly reasoned that since the two young accomplices were present during this communication from the defendant to his wife, the communication was not private and therefore not privileged. [9] The instant privilege, although it has been characterized as an extremely effective ... stumbling-block ... to obstruct the attainment of justice [10] is founded on a sound public policy to promote confidence between husband and wife. This policy would not be served by applying that privilege to the circumstances here considered.