Opinion ID: 2443037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: confidential communications/spousal privilege

Text: Findley next claims he should have been allowed to assert the husband-wife privilege in order to prevent his ex-wife from testifying as to certain confidential communications between them around the time of the murder. Findley presented seventeen statements to the trial court that Judy Findley Jones made at the first trial and that he argued were confidential communications and should be excluded from her testimony at the second trial. [1] The trial court examined each statement, heard arguments from counsel, and ruled that the statements Findley made to his wife, and which she repeated at trial, were either for the purpose of establishing an alibi, in which case they were intended for publication, or the statements did not comprise things Findley told his wife, but were merely things Mrs. Jones did or observed. The trial court admitted most of the statements, and suppressed others. We find the trial court's rulings, with regard to these statements, were correct; however, one statement is worthy of comment. Mrs. Jones testified at the first trial that following Findley's arrest, she visited him at the county jail and he told her to dispose of [some shells in their apartment] or call his sister and get her to do something with them. The trial court held the statement was not confidential since it was intended for disclosure to Findley's sister. We agree since the communication clearly falls outside the purview of A.R.E. Rule 504, which provides that 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. (Emphasis added.)