Court Opinion

ID: 9808075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:27:10.207863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:28.530765
License: Public Domain

Cook, T., concurring.
The criminal relations upon which the indictment is found, existed before the witness and feme defendant were married. Therefore the crime was commit-' ted when the witness was competent to testify against her. After his marriage with her, he became an incompetent witness to testify against her under the statute. But she was not on trial — a not. pros, had been entered as to her, and she was no longer in jeopardy, was not in Court. The witness was called upon to testify against. Wiseman, and his testimony could not in any way affect his then wife. The privacy of home life, the relations existing between the husband and wife, were not in any wa;\ 'nvolved. The witness testified to facts which had occurred and which he knew before he was married to the feme defendant. To exclude his testimony because he had afterwards married the adulteress, would have the effect of depriving the State of its evidence to convict a criminal, by reason of a contract (contract of marriage) entered into by one of the offenders and the witness, to which contract the State was not a party and could not be bound, and which would be against public policy.
Therefore I think the witness (husband) was a competent witness to testify against the adulterer, Wiseman.