Court Opinion

ID: 9522459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:26:07.220492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:50.812977
License: Public Domain

*53Cavanagh, J.
I respectfully dissent. As I interpret the language in the spousal-privilege statute, "[t]he phrase 'grows out of’ indicates that the particular cause of action must be for the personal injury inflicted upon one spouse by the other.” People v Love, 425 Mich 691, 702; 391 NW2d 738 (1986). Stated otherwise, "the crime charged must have been committed against the witness-spouse to come within the 'personal wrong or injury’ exception.” Id. at 703 (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the prosecutor did not charge the defendant for the crime he allegedly committed against his spouse. Consequently, under my view of the statute, the exception for allowing spousal testimony could not apply in this case, regardless of the temporal sequences of the alleged offenses. Because, as the Court of Appeals, I am not convinced that the admission of the wife’s testimony constituted a harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, I would hold that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.