418 P.3d 1081
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- Claudette Craig was charged with three DUI counts and one criminal damage (domestic-related) count; her husband was a key witness.
- Craig moved to preclude her husband from testifying at the DUI trial under Arizona's anti-marital fact privilege (A.R.S. § 13-4062) and to sever the criminal damage count from the DUI counts.
- The City argued the statutory exception (crimes committed by one spouse against the other) and the Victims’ Bill of Rights (VBR) made the husband a “victim,” so he could testify about all charges.
- The municipal court precluded husband testimony for the DUI counts, severed the criminal damage count, and the superior court denied the City relief; the City sought appellate review via special action.
- The appellate court exercised special action jurisdiction, reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the superior court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Craig) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti-marital fact privilege bars husband’s testimony about DUI counts | Husband is a “victim” under VBR and the statute’s spouse-against-spouse exception applies, so he may testify | Privilege protects testimony about events during marriage; exception doesn’t apply to these DUI charges | Privilege applies; husband precluded from testifying about DUI counts |
| Whether VBR designation of spouse as “victim” overrides marital privilege | VBR makes spouse a victim for DUI, permitting compelled testimony | VBR’s purpose (victim rights) differs from privilege purpose (marital peace); VBR doesn’t repeal or alter the marital exception | VBR does not automatically negate the marital privilege or its exception |
| Whether exception for one charge extends to all charges from same conduct | If exception applies to one charge it should apply to all same-course-of-conduct charges | Exception must be evaluated per charge; court should not automatically extend exception | Exception does not automatically extend to all charges arising from same conduct |
| Whether severance of criminal damage count from DUI counts was proper | Severance unnecessary because testimony can be used for all counts | Severance necessary to avoid prejudice from admitted spouse testimony on one count spilling to others | Trial court did not abuse discretion in severing the counts |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whitaker, 112 Ariz. 537 (superseded on other grounds) (legislative purpose of anti-marital privilege; defer to marital peace)
- State v. Crow, 104 Ariz. 579 (1969) (exception applies where crime so affects spouse that marital-peace rationale is inapplicable)
- State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 547 (App. 1985) (endangerment with spouse passenger places strain on marriage—distinguished here)
- State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 409 (1995) (VBR can render a noninjury party a “victim” for deposition protections—distinguished)
- State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250 (App. 2007) (DUI often considered a victimless crime)
- State v. Garland, 191 Ariz. 213 (1998) (severance reviewed for abuse of discretion)