430 P.3d 884
Ariz.2018Background
- Claudette Craig was charged with one count of criminal damage (domestic-violence offense) and three DUI counts after allegedly becoming intoxicated, attempting to drive, and backing into a jointly owned vehicle.
- Her husband, H.C., called police and was a potential witness to both the damage and the DUI-related conduct.
- Craig invoked Arizona’s anti-marital fact privilege to preclude H.C. from testifying about the DUI counts; the municipal court granted the motion and severed the DUI charges.
- The City petitioned for special-action relief; the superior court and court of appeals denied relief, prompting this Supreme Court review.
- The central legal question was whether Arizona’s crime exception to the anti-marital fact privilege permits a witness-spouse to testify about charges (DUI) that arise from the same unitary event as a crime charged against the spouse (criminal damage).
- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the municipal court, holding the crime exception covers testimony about all charges arising from the same unitary event and vacated lower appellate decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the crime exception to the anti-marital fact privilege allows a witness-spouse to testify about offenses other than the one charged against the defendant-spouse when those offenses arise from the same unitary event | The City: the crime exception permits the spouse to testify about all charges arising from the same unitary event (e.g., DUI and criminal damage) | Craig: privilege bars H.C. from testifying about the DUI counts; severance required | Court: Adopted the Whitaker unitary-event test — when a spouse is charged for a crime against the other spouse, the witness-spouse may testify about other charges arising from the same unitary event; therefore H.C. may testify about the DUI counts |
| Whether severance of charges was required if the crime exception permits the spouse’s testimony | The City: no severance necessary if testimony is allowed under the crime exception | Craig: severance was necessary to protect fairness given the privilege invocation | Court: Because the crime exception allows H.C.’s testimony about the DUI counts, severance was not needed; municipal court’s severance was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crow, 104 Ariz. 579 (1969) (crime exception applied to permit spouse’s testimony about related murder charges when spouse was assaulted during the same incident)
- State v. Whitaker, 112 Ariz. 537 (1975) (adopted unitary-event approach: if a spouse is a victim in a single criminal event, the witness-spouse may testify about related charges)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) (discusses the historical roots and limits of the marital testimonial privilege)
- Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (2003) (statutory interpretation principle: give effect to statute’s plain language)
- State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 547 (1985) (applied crime exception to permit wife to testify in prosecutions for vehicular manslaughter and DUI when husband was charged with endangering his wife and offenses arose from same events)