Opinion ID: 1721671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: were statements used against shell taken in violation of the spousal privilege?

Text: Shell next contends that on several occasions certain statements allegedly taken in violation of the spousal privilege, were allowed into evidence. Three of these alleged violations of the spousal privilege occurred at the pre-trial hearing and one occurred at trial. No person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness, or to refuse to disclose any matter or to produce any object or writing, or to prevent another from being a witness, disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing (M.R.E. 501), except for recognized privileges given by the federal or state constitutions or by the rules of evidence. The recognized spousal privilege asserted by Shell here is found in Rule 504, Mississippi Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.), the relevant portions of which read as follows: RULE 504. HUSBAND-WIFE PRIVILEGE (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. In any proceeding, civil or criminal, a person has a privilege to prevent his spouse, or former spouse, from testifying as to any confidential communication between himself and his spouse. (c) Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by either spouse in his or her right or on behalf of the other... . The spousal privilege has ancient roots [3] and prohibited a wife from testifying against her husband based upon the concept that husband and wife were one entity. Since the woman held no separate legal existence in medieval times, the husband was that entity. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 44, 100 S.Ct. 906, 909, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Although the basis for the privilege has long been abandoned, the spousal privilege has continued in some form and is applied to both spouses. The privilege is under criticism today under the view that the spousal privilege contravenes the public's right to every man's evidence. Trammel, supra, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S.Ct. at 912.
The first complaint occurred at the pre-trial motion to suppress hearing during Sheriff Rosamond's testimony. He testified that Mrs. Shell ... told me the same thing that her daddy did. He then related the essence of Mrs. Shell's story given outside the defendant's presence denying that Shell had been at home with her Saturday night after the party on June 8. No objection was made at this point to the Sheriff's testimony, and the State asserts, once again, that Shell is procedurally barred from challenging this point on appeal. Because the matter was not presented to the jury, at most, it would infect the integrity of the suppression hearing. In such a setting, it is appropriate to quote from Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365 (Miss. 1987). Counsel may not sit idly by making no protest as objectionable evidence is admitted, and then raise the issue for the first time on appeal. If no contemporaneous objection is made, the error, if any, is waived. This rule's applicability is not diminished in a capital case. Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305 (Miss. 1986), cert. denied, [481] U.S. [1042], 107 S.Ct. 1986, 95 L.Ed.2d 826 (1987); Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1109, 106 S.Ct. 1958, 90 L.Ed.2d 366 (1986); In re Hill, 460 So.2d 792 (Miss. 1984); Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427 (Miss. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 414, 78 L.Ed.2d 352 (1983). Cole v. State, 525 So.2d at 369; See also, Pinkney v. State, 538 So.2d 329, 338 (Miss. 1988). But see, Cole, supra, 525 So.2d at 384-85 (Robertson, J., concurring). The next instance of objectionable testimony occurred at the pre-trial hearing as well. The Sheriff testified that Shell was not aware of the particulars of his wife's testimony, whereupon Rosamond related her version of the night's events to the appellant. At this point, defense counsel raised an objection to the Sheriff's statements based on spousal privilege. The objection was overruled by the trial court. Shell's reliance on Bayse v. State, 420 So.2d 1050 (Miss. 1982), is misplaced. In Bayse, a police officer was allowed to repeat all of the statements made by the defendant's wife to him and outside the defendant's presence. Id. at 1053. That case differs from the case sub judice in that here, three of the four complained-of statements were made at a pre-trial hearing, where the primary issue was the voluntariness of the statements, not the guilt of the appellant. Additionally, Shell encouraged the Sheriff to question his wife, in an effort to corroborate his story. The defendant asserts that these three instances that occurred at the pretrial stage constitute reversible error. The error asserted is introduction of statements of Shell's wife made to the Sheriff that were subject to the spousal privilege of M.R.E. 504. Rule 504 applies to the spouse testifying as to confidential communication between the spouses and not intended for disclosure to any other person. Initially, this Court notes that these statements of Shell's wife were made to the Sheriff, outside her husband's presence. They were not confidential statements between spouses, and they were not intended to be confidential because Shell invited the Sheriff to talk to his wife. There is no spousal privilege here. If there were any private communications between the Shells that were repeated to the Sheriff by Mrs. Shell, Shell waived any privilege by inviting the Sheriff to talk to his wife. Such a statement was not made under circumstances that suggest it was intended to be confidential. Additionally, there is equally applicable here the procedural bar for the defense failure to contemporaneously and timely object. This Court holds that no error was committed here for reason of the spousal privilege assertion, and even if so, any error would be harmless. This is so because the evidence received does not call into question the voluntariness finding of the suppression hearing and because the evidence was not presented to the trial jury.
The next challenged exchange occurred after searching the trailer, when Sheriff Rosamond asked Shell to come down to the Sheriff's office to talk further. As they were leaving, Sheriff Rosamond testified that Mrs. Shell said, Robert, you tell Mr. Rosamond the truth. I've already told him the truth. Sheriff Rosamond repeated this statement at both the pre-trial hearing and at trial, but defense counsel only timely challenged the statement's admissibility at trial. This objection was overruled by the trial court. This claim of spousal privilege must also be analyzed under M.R.E. 504. True, the statement was made between the defendant and his wife, but it was made in the presence of the Sheriff and deputy sheriff and was not under circumstances suggesting confidentiality. The presence of the Sheriff and his deputy when the statement was made is fatal to this portion of Shell's claim. The privilege protected by Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-5 extends only to communications which are intended to be confidential. Thus, the presence of another person, even a family member, is deemed to mean that the communication was not intended to be confidential. Fanning v. State, 497 So.2d 70, 74 (Miss. 1986); Dycus v. State, 440 So.2d 246, 256 (Miss. 1983). This view has been carried forward in Rule 504. See Comment, Rule 504, Mississippi Rules of Evidence; It is important that this Court note that the Sheriff was asked by the prosecutor [A]fter you talked to his wife, what happened? The Sheriff's reply, although unresponsive, was [s]he told me the same story that he had told me. Record, Vol. III, p. 255. Initially, a reader might wonder to whom the he refers. A reading of the trial transcript, however, will reveal that only the defendant's statements were in the record. The content of Shell's now-deceased father-in-law was not mentioned at trial, nor was the content of the spouse's statements. This Court concludes that there is no error based upon the spousal privilege in this record. The hearsay aspect of this assignment is the subject of an assignment under VI.