You are here: / / MARITAL PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE...
,

MARITAL PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE WAS GOING TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN.

In an arson case, the Third Department determined County Court properly allowed defendant’s wife to testify defendant said he was going to burn the house down. The court explained the limits of marital privilege:

The privilege that precludes a spouse from disclosing a confidential communication made during marriage by the other spouse (see CPLR 4502 [b]; CPL 60.10) does not protect every remark between spouses during a marriage. Instead, “the privilege attaches only to those statements made in confidence and ‘that are induced by the marital relation and prompted by the affection, confidence and loyalty engendered by such relationship'” … . The wife testified that her marriage to defendant began to deteriorate during the months before the fire, in part because defendant wanted to relocate to Colorado while the wife wanted to remain in New York and continue living in the marital home with her children. She stated that, as the relationship worsened, defendant told her “many” times that he would burn the house down to prevent her from taking possession of it when they separated.

The privilege “was never designed to forbid inquiry into the personal wrongs committed by one spouse against the other” and, thus, does not apply here, as defendant’s statements were not prompted by trust or confidence in the marital relationship, but, instead, constituted threats of criminal activity directed at the wife … . Further, the privilege does not apply “when the substance of a communication . . . is revealed to third parties” … . Here, the wife testified that several of defendant’s threats were made in the presence of other people, including mutual friends and the couple’s children, and these statements were not privileged … . People v Howard, 2015 NY Slip Op 08870, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (MARITAL PRIVILEGE)/EVIDENCE (MARITAL PRIVILEGE, CRIMINAL TRIAL)

You might also like
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTION THAT THE DECEDENT LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE INQUIRY IS CONFINED TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE WILL IS SIGNED, TWO DISSENTERS (THIRD DEPT). ​
CLAIMANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER HER AFTER HER POSITION WAS ABOLISHED.
CONSULTANT HIRED TO EVALUATE TEACHERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE.
JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PARTIES’ AGREEMENT ON ALL BUT ONE ISSUE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION, THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT MADE A PROPER INQUIRY OF A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, REVEALED SHE WAS A RAPE VICTIM; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE; THE DISSENTING JUDGE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
WHETHER MOTHER MOVED MORE THAN 40 MILES WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ACTION; FAMILY COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE MOVE WAS 39 MILES; THE DISSENT ARGUED FAMILY COURT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BASIS OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE WHICH PRECLUDED A CHALLENGE TO THE FINDING (THIRD DEPT).
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RESPONDENT’S RECORDS FOR ALL CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS COULD REVEAL THE IDENTITIES OF UNDERCOVER OFFICERS; THEREFORE THE REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, A LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH ATTENDANT, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL AFTER PICKING UP MEDICAL RECORDS FROM HER DOCTOR’S OFFICE; THE PURPOSE OF HER VISIT TO THE DOCTOR’S OFFICE WAS NOT PURELY PERSONAL; THEREFORE SHE WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE OPENED THE DOOR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL... FAILURE TO CLARIFY WHETHER APPEAL WAIVER WAS PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED...