Opinion ID: 901120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony from Judy Lakin, defendant's alleged spouse.

Text: [¶ 35.] A trial court's evidentiary rulings are presumed correct and are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Owens, 2002 SD 42, ¶ 78, 643 N.W.2d 735, 755; State v. Perovich, 2001 SD 96, ¶ 11, 632 N.W.2d 12, 15. Talarico's attorney asserted that the marital communications privilege applied and moved to bar Lakin from testifying at trial. Talarico maintains that the trial court should not have allowed Lakin to testify. Lakin testified at a pretrial motion hearing and at trial that she and the defendant were divorced. However, there is no evidence in the record of when the divorce occurred. The trial court indicated that it would rule on that issue at a subsequent pretrial hearing. It is not apparent from the record if the court ever ruled on this motion, however, Talarico's attorney objected during Lakin's testimony at trial. The court denied the objection. [¶ 36.] First of all, the marital privilege only covers communication, not observations. State v. Lorenz, 2001 SD 17, ¶ 8, 622 N.W.2d 243, 245 (citing State v. Hart, 391 N.W.2d 677 (S.D.1986)). Secondly, even if married, the testimony is admissible under the joint-participant exception to the marital communications privilege. The exception provides that the communication is not protected if it is one criminal, or potential criminal, talking to another. State v. Witchey, 388 N.W.2d 893, 895 (S.D.1986). The testifying spouse must be more than a receptor of a statement from the spouse that committed the crime. Id. Active participation in, or furtherance of, patently criminal activity by the witness-spouse must be shown. Id. (citations omitted). In this case Lakin, by her own admissions, was an active participant. In fact, Lakin received immunity from being prosecuted for her role in the crimes in exchange for her testimony. In addition, the trial court found as a matter of law, that she was an accomplice. The joint participant exception applies in this case. We affirm on this issue.