Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Mule being represented by a very expensive attorney

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: n eavesdroppers to testify (you have a right to prevent ANYone from testifying about a confidential communication) so when an unknown eavesdropper is around it depends on the circumstances whether or not the spousal privilege is waived. (Ex: Loud parking lot argument = not privileged if someone overhears, but quiet bedside conversation when your room is being bugged = privileged if someone overhears.) CONSTANCIO v. STATE [Spousal Privilege Confidential Communications] Facts: Appellant convicted of rape and two counts of the "infamous crime" against nature. Former wife of appellant was permitted to testify, over objection, that during their marriage appellant often had a difficult time getting hard. Procedural Posture: Appellant objected to the admission of this testimony, on the theory that sexual behavior during marriage should be classified as communication protected by the spousal privilege. Issue: Does "sexual behavior" constitute "communication" as required by the spousal privilege? Holding: "Sexual behavior" does not constitute "confidential communications" between hus...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online