State v. Davaloo, 320 Conn. 123

Davalloo, a murder defendant, argued that statements to her husband were protected by the marital communications privilege under § 54-84b (a).
The case involved a love triangle among Davalloo, Nelson Sessler, and Raymundo Raymundo, with Davalloo’s extramarital affair and attempts to conceal it.
Davalloo’s statements included deceptive narratives about a faux triangle and plans to spy on the lover, plus actions related to the murder and post‑murder conduct.
The trial court: statements prior to Raymundo’s murder were not within the privilege; statements after Raymundo’s death and those about the attack on Christos were likewise outside the privilege.
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the statements were not “induced by the affection, confidence, loyalty and integrity” of the marital relationship and thus not privileged.
The Supreme Court granted certification to interpret § 54-84b and its “induced by” element, ultimately holding that the statute imposes an additional requirement beyond the common‑law shared element of confidential communication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 54-84b (a) adds an element requiring ‘induced by affection’	Davalloo argues privilege covers confidential communications during marriage.	State contends the added ‘induced by’ element narrows the privilege.	Yes; the court held the privilege requires induced by affection, etc.
Whether Davalloo’s statements fall within the privilege given the facts	Davalloo’s statements were part of a marital relationship and related to confidential matters.	The statements were to deceive and further an extramarital affair, not induced by affection.	No; the statements are outside § 54-84b (a) under the facts.

State v. Christian, 267 Conn. 710 (2004) (established the basic structure of the marital communications privilege)
State v. Davalloo, 153 Conn. App. 419 (2014) (codified privilege and added ‘induced by’ element; appellate ruling affirmed")
State v. Mark R., 300 Conn. 590 (2011) (review of privilege as a question of law; plenary on statute interpretation)
State v. Adams, 308 Conn. 263 (2013) (statutory interpretation guiding privilege scope)
State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1 (2009) (interpretation framework for statutes and evidentiary rules)