Court Opinion

ID: 9676379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:23:11.851177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.181612
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). I would conclude that the Court of Appeals erred when it peremptorily reversed the trial court’s ruling in limine on the authority of People v Hamacher (On Remand), 160 Mich App 759; 408 NW2d 549 (1987). The decision of the Court of Appeals in Hamacher did not address the preliminary issue of confidentiality, but rather was concerned only with the proper construction of the exceptions in § 2162. The trial court in this case ruled that the statute was inapplicable, because the statements at issue were not confidential. The trial court did not err. I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for trial.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the presumption of confidentiality had been rebutted on the facts before it. Therefore, unless it is held as a preliminary matter that any communication, whether confidential or not, is excluded by the statute, the proper focus of our review is whether the communication was intended to be confidential. The majority concludes: "The statute clearly and unequivocally provides that a spouse may not, 'during the marriage or afterwards’ (emphasis added) be examined as to any communication made 'during the marriage.’ ” Ante, p 37. The majority’s paraphrase of the issue suggests that the issue is whether the privilege to bar a marital communication survives dissolution of the marriage. However, the trial court’s holding did not rest on the time of the *42communication, but rather focused on the nature of what was said and the circumstances in which the statement was made. Indeed, in his ruling the trial judge specifically recognized:
The "spousal privilege” germane to this case applies to confidential communications made within the marital relationship, irrespective of the marital status of the parties at the time of the suit.
Thus, the question presented is whether the trial court incorrectly concluded that the defendant’s statement that he intended to kill his second wife was not a confidential communication.
The defendant Vermeulen was charged with the murder of Urime Lewis. The defendant had married Ms. Lewis on November 11, 1985, while still married to Sharon Vermeulen. Prior to his bigamous marriage to Ms. Lewis, the defendant had attempted to secure Sharon Vermeulen’s signature on a document which falsely stated that the two had been divorced for five years. When she refused to sign that statement, the defendant filed for divorce.1 On or about December 19, 1985, approximately five weeks after marrying the victim, the defendant allegedly told Sharon Vermeulen that he intended to kill Ms. Lewis if she left him. Ms. Lewis was shot and killed on or about December 26, 1985, at which time defendant apparently also attempted to shoot himself. Approximately six weeks later, on February 7, 1986, defendant’s divorce from Sharon Vermeulen was granted.
Prior to trial, the prosecutor moved in limine to secure the admission of Sharon Vermeulen’s testi*43mony concerning defendant’s threats upon the life of Ms. Lewis. The trial court held that the communication was not confidential. In concluding that Sharon Vermeulen’s testimony was admissible, the trial judge stated:
The facts[2] show an intention for a permanent separation. The above facts in existence at the time of the communication rebut the presumption of confidentiality that is a requirement of the exercise of the privilege. The purpose for the privilege is not affected or weakened as a result of this decision.
The marriage relationship of John and Sharon Vermeulen had no viability. Essentially the marital relationship had long ceased to exist. Thus, statements made by the Defendant to his first wife, Sharon, concerning his intentions on the life of his second wife, Urime, were and are not confidential.
In addition, the communication had to do with the commission of a crime not with the privacy of the Vermeulen marriage.
Society’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of the relationships of permanently separated spouses is outweighed by the need to secure evidence in the search for truth that is the essence of a criminal trial, and proof of the permanent separated status at the time of the communication between the Defendant, John Vermeulen, and his first wife, Sharon Vermeulen, renders the communications privilege automatically inapplicable.
Despite the use of the word “automatically,” it *44is evident from the trial judge’s careful review of the facts and the law that the ruling was based on the fact thát the alleged communication was not a conñdential communication within the meaning of § 2162, and as such, the privilege was inapplicable. Judge Mester did not base his ruling on an erroneous view that the privileged communication rule does not survive a marriage. Rather, the trial court held that, in light of the fact that the communication occurred after the parties were separated, after the defendant had filed for divorce alleging that the parties were no longer living together and that the objects of matrimony had been destroyed, and after he had bigamously married, the presumption of confidentiality was rebutted.
Contrary to the apparent position of the majority, this Court has recognized that not every communication made during marriage is subject to the privilege. In People v Zabijak, 285 Mich 164, 177; 280 NW 149 (1938), this Court reiterated the accepted rule that "communication” as used in the statute refers only to those communications "recognized by law to be conñdential communications.”3 (Emphasis added.) In concluding that the statements at issue in Zabijak were not confidential within the meaning of the statute, the Court *45looked to several factors. Included in the Court’s considerations were the facts that 1) defendant and his wife were married at the time of the statements but were living separately and in the process of obtaining a divorce, 2) subsequent to the crime, but prior to trial, a decree of divorce was obtained, 3) the communications were not in the nature of an admission of which the defendant’s spouse was not otherwise aware, 4) the communications were in the nature of threats relating to a criminal act, and 5) revelation of the communications did not injure the marriage relation.
In this case, similar factors were noted by the trial judge in finding that the presumption of confidentiality was rebutted. First, the defendant was separated from his wife at the time of the communication and had attempted to falsify a document indicating a legal divorce from her. Also, the defendant had filed for divorce and bigamously married the victim at the time of the communication. Second, subsequent to the communication, but prior to the trial, defendant obtained a divorce decree. Third, the communication was in the nature of threats wholly unrelated to the Vermeulen marriage. Fourth, the policy underlying the privilege was not affected by admission of the testimony in this case. Finally, the trial judge specifically found that society’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of relationships of permanently separated spouses is outweighed by the need to secure this evidence.
The majority attempts to distinguish Zabijak on the grounds that the defendant’s statement in this case "was not made in the course of a murderous assault on the witness spouse.” Ante, p 40. The statements in Zabijak, the majority points out, concerned a contemplated assault that was part of the same felonious activity in which the witness *46spouse was involved. Under such circumstances, it argues, the Court’s determination that the communication was not privileged is "not remarkable.”
A careful reading of the Court’s analysis in Zabijak, however, shows that neither the closeness in time of the attack on the witness spouse and the communication, nor the fact that the statements by the defendant were part of the "same felonious transaction” as involved the witness, was considered to be a primary factor in its conclusion that the communication in that case was not confidential. Indeed, there is no mention of those facts anywhere in the Court’s analysis of the confidentiality issue. That discussion focuses rather on the nature of the statements themselves, which the Court characterizes as "threats,” the circumstances under which the statements were made, and the possible injury to the "marriage relation” between the defendant and the witness.
The majority also attacks the reliance of the Court in Zabijak on the fact that the "marriage relation” between the defendant and the witness was less than harmonious. The majority contends that "[t]he nature of the marriage relationship immediately preceding or immediately after the communication is not ... a circumstance respecting the communication that may be considered in determining whether it is confidential.” Ante, p 39.
The question of societal protection of the marital relationship in general aside, it seems to me that the nature of the particular relationship between a defendant and a witness spouse is, as the Zabijak Court recognized,4 a legitimate factor in determin*47ing whether a communication is confidential, because in the end such a determination depends on the intention of the communicator, which in turn depends on his relationship with the one with whom he is communicating and the circumstances in which the communication was made. Would the defendant here have communicated something he truly intended to be confidential to a woman from whom he was permanently separated and against whom he had filed for divorce? I think it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude on the basis of these circumstances, including the nonexistent marriage relationship, that the statements the defendant made to his permanently separated wife were not confidential and therefore were admissible.
The Court of Appeals, however, clearly erred when it ruled that the proffered testimony of Sharon Vermeulen was barred on the authority of People v Hamacher (On Remand), supra. The Court of Appeals in that case did not have occasion to test the confidentiality of the statements made by the defendant. The arguments offered by the defendant, and the discussion by the majority, concluding that the trial judge has crafted an exception to § 2162 for communications on the basis of the strength of an otherwise legal marriage are unfounded. The trial judge did not amend the statute. He held that the statute was inapplicable in this case._
*48While it is as important in today’s society as it has been throughout the history of our jurisprudence to promote a secure haven for marital confidences, applying the rule in these circumstances to bar the first Mrs. Vermeulen’s testimony regarding the homicide of the second Mrs. Vermeulen employs an anachronistic obstacle to truth whose justification can only be traced to the ancient notion that husband and wife are one.
I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on the basis that the Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that the spouse’s testimony was inadmissible as a confidential communication and remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for trial.
Riley, C.J., and Griffin, J., concurred with Boyle, J.

 The complaint, dated October 28, 1985, and filed in the Oakland Circuit Court on November 1, 1985, stated that defendant and Sharon Vermeulen were "no longer living together as husband and wife and have not so lived together since September 30, 1985.”

 The facts referred to include 1) defendant and Sharon Vermeulen were separated at the time of the alleged communication, 2) defendant had asked Sharon Vermeulen to sign a document falsifying their divorce, 3) defendant filed for divorce on October 28, 1985, declaring that the two were no longer living as husband and wife, and 4) defendant bigamously married while still married to Sharon Vermeulen. In addition, the judge noted that the communication concerned the commission of a crime and did not deal with any aspect of the Vermeulen marriage.

 In Zabijak, the defendant was married but did not reside with his wife. One afternoon he confronted his wife with a gun at her home and informed her that he was going to kill her. After locking the door, he chased his wife to another room where she held their infant child. The defendant then shot three times, killing the child and wounding his wife. He then told her he was going to kill her mother, and proceeded to walk about one block away to the home of his mother-in-law, where he shot and killed her. The defendant then attempted to kill himself by shooting the gun into his mouth. The defendant was charged with the first-degree murder of his mother-in-law, but was not tried for nearly sixteen years because he was incarcerated in a state hospital for the criminally insane. Upon his release from the state hospital, and at his trial, the defendant attempted to bar his former wife’s testimony concerning his statements to her at the time of the assault.

 The Zabijak holding may be read as the Court’s attempt to avoid the harsh consequences that flow from an application of the statute that does not recognize that not all statements made during a marriage can be considered confidential. It is also arguably subject to *47the criticism that permitting a court to evaluate the nature of the relationship at the time of the communication involves potential unwarranted intrusions into the marital relationship. These observations suggest that the Legislature might appropriately consider limiting the privilege to situations in which the lack of any real continuing relationship has been manifested by objective events such as filing for divorce or separate maintenance. The Legislature has, for example, manifested its intent that a sexual assault prosecution is not precluded by continuation of the legal relationship where "the couple are living apart and one of them has filed for separate maintenance or divorce.” MCL 750.5201; MSA 28.788(12).