Opinion ID: 1407547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Marital Privilege and Hearsay Claims.

Text: Colorado Springs Detective Aldrich testified that he talked with Norma Shults. He then called Las Vegas police informing them that he had information regarding a homicide victim and directed Las Vegas police to a location he had been given. Officer Woodworth testified that he talked with Norma Shults by telephone and consequently directed the search for the body to a different area. Alrich stated that he listened to Norma Shults as she talked to Officer Woodworth. At trial neither officer testified as to the content of Mrs. Shults' statement. In Nevada, a wife cannot be examined as a witness for or against her husband without the consent of the husband nor can a wife be examined without the consent of the husband as to any communication made by one to the other during marriage. NRS 49.295(1). Appellant contends that the testimony by the officers violated the marital privilege statute. We first note that appellant's wife was not a witness at trial. Thus, she was not actually examined as contemplated by the statute. See Metz v. State, 9 Md. App. 15, 262 A.2d 331, 333-34 (Md. App. 1970). Moreover, we cannot say that the testimony by the officers revealed any privileged communication between appellant and his wife. On this record, it is impossible to determine whether Mrs. Shults made a statement as to the body's location, whether she was present during the burial, whether others in addition to appellant were present at the scene, or whether, in fact, confidentiality was contemplated. It would be mere speculation to say that she acquired what knowledge she had from a communication with appellant. We do not find a violation of the marital privilege statutes. [2] Compare Deutscher v. State, 95 Nev. 669, 601 P.2d 407 (1979) (testimony by officer as to comments by appellant's wife did not violate privilege) and Grundstrom v. State, 456 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (wife did not testify as to a communication by giving physical evidence to police in response to question by officer) with State v. Suits, 296 N.C. 533, 251 S.E.2d 607 (1979) (officer could not testify as to wife's conduct in response to questions asked of her). Appellant next contends that the testimony by the officers improperly circumvented the hearsay rule. Of course, out of court statements by appellant's wife would be inadmissible hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Deutscher v. State, 95 Nev. at 683-84, 601 P.2d at 417. Although the officers revealed no statements made by Mrs. Shults, appellant argues that the inference was that she told the officers that she knew where the body was and that appellant placed it there or had some connection with it. The state asserts that the results of the conversation with Mrs. Shults were not offered to prove the truth of any matter but only to explain the conduct of the searchers. Here, the officers did not reveal any particular statements made by Mrs. Shults. The results of the conversation with appellant's wife were offered only to explain the resulting conduct of the police. After testifying that a conversation took place, the witnesses simply testified as to what occurred thereafter, not to out of court statements of another. The witnesses were subject to cross-examination as to the existence of these facts. Such is not violative of the hearsay rule. Enlow v. United States, 239 F.2d 887, 890 (10th Cir.1957).