Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's motion to suppress the testimony of sheila bush hammock

Text: The appellant contends that the marital privilege should have barred, at trial, the testimony of Sheila Bush Hammock concerning statements made by the appellant to Ms. Hammock during their marriage. Specifically, the appellant argues that, because the trial court restricted examination of Ms. Hammock at the suppression hearing to the circumstances under which any statements were made that might be attributable or not attributable to some marital privilege, the court was unable to properly determine whether the appellant could invoke the privilege. In other words, according to the appellant, testimony concerning the details and contents of the statements was essential to the resolution of the appellant's motion. The suppression hearing was held on June 9, 1992. At the hearing, Ms. Hammock testified that she had married the appellant on August 13, 1988, three days prior to the murder of Jodie Lefever. She further testified that she and the appellant had been dating off and on two years before their marriage. Both before and after their marriage, the appellant threatened and beat Ms. Hammock. Ms. Hammock also stated, He would always call me names and make fun of me. I couldn't say anything right. Moreover, following their marriage, while the appellant and Ms. Hammock were living with her mother, the appellant would not allow Ms. Hammock to visit friends. After they moved to his parents' house, the appellant would not allow her to visit her mother. Ms. Hammock concluded that she was just scared of Michael, and that her relationship with the appellant was a relationship built upon fear and threats. For example, after the appellant admitted to her that he had killed Ms. Lefever, he told Ms. Hammock that the Mafia was watching her, and that, if she ever told anyone what he had done, she would be killed. On the day that Ms. Hammock decided to leave the appellant, he again physically abused her. The State introduced into evidence a picture of bruises that Ms. Hammock suffered as a result of the appellant's abuse. At the time of the suppression hearing, Ms. Hammock and the appellant had been divorced for approximately two years. The rule of marital privilege applicable in the appellant's case was announced by our supreme court in McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218, 186 S.W. 95 (1916). [1a] In McCormick, 186 S.W. at 97, the supreme court held that [s]ound public policy requires that neither the husband nor the wife shall be permitted to testify, in criminal cases, as to any matter coming to his or her knowledge by reason of the marital relation. See also Burton v. State, 501 S.W.2d 814, 817-819 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1973); Bragan, 920 S.W.2d 227. Under this rule, either the testifying or nontestifying spouse can invoke the privilege. Bragan, 920 S.W.2d 227. However, the privilege is not absolute. In Adams, 563 S.W.2d at 808, this court observed that the following conditions must exist before a communication between husband and wife can be considered privileged: (1) The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. (2) This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties. (3) The relation must be one which, in the opinion of the community, ought to be sedulously fostered. (4) The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation. The court in Adams noted that exceptions to the marital privilege generally arise from the failure of the communication to meet these conditions. Id. All four of these conditions must exist to protect the evidence by the marital privilege. State v. Garland, 617 S.W.2d 176, 183 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1981). Thus, testimony at the suppression hearing relevant to the first two conditions was unnecessary if sufficient evidence was presented to negate the last two conditions. In Garland, 617 S.W.2d at 182-183, this court observed that the application of the marital privilege was inappropriate where the marriage between the parties was extremely tumultuous. Similarly, in this case, the trial court denied the appellant's motion to suppress on the basis of the following findings of fact: Sheila (Bush) Hammock and the defendant were married on August 13, 1988. The Court further finds that the parties separated on or about September 25, 1988. From the testimony, the Court further finds that a divorce was granted to the parties approximately two (2) years prior to the date of this hearing. The Court further finds that the marriage was extremely turbulent and disturbing from its beginning. The defendant regularly beat and physically abused the prospective witness. He subjected her to various forms of mental and verbal abuse on a regular basis. He threatened her with physical harm and death if she ever disclosed any of the crimes which he allegedly committed. The threats were made before and after the threats [sic] were allegedly committed. The findings of fact made by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing are afforded the weight of a jury verdict; this court will not set aside the judgment of the trial court unless the evidence in the record preponderates against its findings. State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530, 544 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Dick, 872 S.W.2d 938, 943 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1993); State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). We conclude that the record supports the trial court's findings. Thus, as in Garland, 617 S.W.2d at 183, we do not believe that the conditions 3 and 4 enumerated in Adams are met. Therefore, contrary to the appellant's argument in his brief, further testimony regarding the contents of the appellant's statements to Ms. Hammock was unnecessary to the proper resolution of the appellant's motion.