State v. Mauti, 208 N.J. 519

Jeannette Mauti, wife of Dr. James Mauti, invoked the spousal privilege under N.J.R.E. 501(2) to avoid testifying in her husband’s criminal trial for aggravated sexual assault and related offenses.
Joanne L., the assault victim, testified to a sequence of events at the defendant’s office involving drugging, sexual contact, and videotape-like signaling; Jeannette later sought to testify to corroborate or challenge that account.
The State sought to compel Jeannette’s trial testimony, relying on the Kozlov framework (need, relevance, no less-intrusive source) to pierce the spousal privilege.
The trial court granted the motion, applying Kozlov to determine that the privilege could be pierced; the Appellate Division reversed, holding Kozlov inapplicable or not satisfied here and finding no implicit waiver.
This Court granted review to determine whether Kozlov’s piercing standards apply to the spousal privilege, and whether Jeannette adequately waived or implicitly waived the privilege.
The Court held that Kozlov applies to spousal privilege only in narrow circumstances (constitutional right at stake or explicit/implicit waiver) and that Jeannette’s invocation should be honored; there was no permissible implicit waiver here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Kozlov apply to the spousal privilege in a criminal case?	State/amicus: Kozlov applies; privilege pierced when need, relevance, and no less-intrusive source are shown.	Jeannette: Kozlov does not apply to spousal privilege; no constitutional conflict; no need met here.	Kozlov applies only in narrow constitutional or waiver contexts; not satisfied here
Was Jeannette waiving or implicitly waiving the privilege	State: Jeannette’s actions in investigation amount to implied waiver.	Jeannette: no waiver because she was not holder of privilege at the time; no implied waiver.	No implicit waiver; Jeannette entitled to invoke spousal privilege
Is there no less-intrusive source available for the proffered testimony	State: other witnesses and documents cannot replicate Jeannette’s information.	Privilege should prevail since potential corroboration from others exists and sources are less-intrusive.	No, there were less-intrusive sources; privilege prevails

In re Kozlov, 79 N.J. 232 (N.J. 1979) (piercing privilege only in narrow constitutional/waiver contexts)
Farber, 78 N.J. 259 (N.J. 1978) (constitutional right triumphs over shield laws)
Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276 (N.J. 1997) (waiver and confidentiality carve-outs in family law)
Baluch, 341 N.J. Super. 141 (App. Div. 2001) (no general privilege narrowing to protect marital harmony)
State v. Szemple, 135 N.J. 406 (N.J. 1994) (marital communications privilege scope)
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1980) (recognizes broad public policy of testimony and privilege limits)
State v. Briley, 53 N.J. 498 (N.J. 1969) (privileges narrowly construed to protect public interest)