Opinion ID: 2536327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admissibility of Recorded Husband-Wife Jail Conversations

Text: In this claim, Mosley attacks the admissibility of a recorded collect call between Mosley and his wife as a violation of the spousal privilege. In the initial portion of the call, the telephone company requested authorization for the collect call, and then stated that this call is subject to monitoring and recording. As soon as the call began, Mosley immediately told his wife that she should remember April 22, when he came home right after work around 11:30 p.m. He also asked that she remember that his mother stayed over at the house that night because she had been working and wanted to get in early the next day since her job was around the corner. He further asked Mrs. Mosley to get notarized statements from his mother and his daughters to say that he was home all night on April 22. Section 90.504, Florida Statutes (2008), provides for the spousal privilege: (1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife. (2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence. (3) There is no privilege under this section: (a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse. (b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either. (c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made. § 90.504, Fla. Stat. (2008). This privilege can be waived by voluntary disclosure: A person who has a privilege against the disclosure of a confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person, or the person's predecessor while holder of the privilege, voluntarily discloses or makes the communication when he or she does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or consents to disclosure of, any significant part of the matter or communication. This section is not applicable when the disclosure is itself a privileged communication. § 90.507, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis supplied). We initially reject the State's argument that Mosley waived any claim of error by calling Mrs. Mosley to the stand and asking about the substance of the conversation. Mosley raised this issue by motion in limine, and the trial court ruled that the conversation was admissible. Therefore, the presentation of the evidence did not constitute invited error. See Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So.2d 197, 202 (Fla.2001) (holding that the concept of `invited error' does not apply where, as here, the trial court makes an unequivocal ruling admitting evidence over the movant's motion in limine, and the movant subsequently introduces the evidence in an attempt to minimize the prejudicial impact of the evidence); Rodgers v. State, 948 So.2d 655, 666 (Fla.2006) (relying on Sheffield to hold the defendant preserved his claim despite submitting the evidence himself). On the merits, however, we agree with the trial court and the State that Mosley waived any privilege because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he and his wife talked on the telephone. The call began with a prerecorded warning that this call is subject to monitoring and recording. Besides this clear message, Mosley was given a handbook which explicitly warned that telephone calls made in jail would be monitored. [11] Accordingly, we deny this claim.