Court Opinion

ID: 9547058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:40:57.895415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:15.190661
License: Public Domain

Finley, C. J.
(dissenting) — RCW 5.60.060 provides that “a husband shall not be examined for or against his wife, without the consent of the wife, nor a wife for or against her husband without the consent of the husband; . . . But this exception shall not apply . . . to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other. ...”
The reason this rule was promulgated, as recognized in State v. Kephart (1910), 56 Wash. 561, 106 Pac. 165, was *347to preserve the sanctity and harmony of the marital relation. The privilege “spreads its shelter over an existing marriage.” State v. Thorne (1953), 43 Wn. (2d) 47, 260 P. (2d) 331.
This court has in the past distinguished between a legally existing marital relationship and a marital relationship where only “the shell of the marriage contract” remains. Goode v. Martinis (1961), 58 Wn. (2d) 229, 361 P. (2d) 941; MacKenzie v. Sellner (1961), 58 Wn. (2d) 101, 361 P. (2d) 165. Cf. Togliatti v. Robertson (1948), 29 Wn. (2d) 844, 190 P. (2d) 575. In my opinion, the same approach should be applied in the present case.
Where there is no home or marital relationship because the husband and wife are living apart and the husband has been derelict in his duty to support his dependents, only the shell of a marriage exists, and there is no domestic harmony to protect. The reason for application of the privilege granted by virtue of RCW 5.60.060 is therefore absent. Under these circumstances the wife should be allowed to testify against the husband in a proceeding for nonsupport of minor children.
For these reasons I dissent.