State v. Zais
2011 Minn. LEXIS 670
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Undisputed facts: Zais charged with DWI, obstruction, careless driving, and disorderly conduct; his wife was proposed as a witness; district court denied the crime-exception applicability to disorderly conduct; State appealed; court of appeals reversed.
- Pretrial ruling: district court held the disorderly conduct offense did not trigger the crime exception to marital privilege so wife testimony was barred absent consent.
- Issue presented: whether the crime exception to Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(a) applies to the charged disorderly conduct offense under the facts.
- Key legal question: what information must the court consider to determine if a crime was “committed by one [spouse] against the other”?
- Context: prior Minnesota cases have debated whether the crime exception focuses on crime elements, underlying conduct, or both, and whether a crime against a spouse requires directed conduct toward the spouse.
- Holding: yes, the crime exception applies when the underlying conduct was directed at the other spouse in the disorderly conduct charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of crime exception analysis | State: should consider underlying conduct as well as crime elements | Zais: only elements matter | Crime exception requires underlying conduct as well as elements |
| Disorderly conduct as crime against a person | State: conduct directed at spouse suffices | Zais: not directed at spouse | Disorderly conduct may be a crime against a spouse; exception applies |
| Direction of conduct to spouse | State: acts against wife suffice | Zais: acts were not a crime against wife | Evidence shows conduct directed at wife; exception applies |
| Evidence necessary to establish crime against spouse | State: police report and offer of proof establish elements plus underlying conduct | Need only elements | Record supports that conduct was against wife; crime exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009) (pretrial-appeal standard (critical impact) for evidentiary orders)
- State v. McLeod, 705 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 2005) (critical-impact test for pretrial orders)
- State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544 (Minn. 1987) (exclusion must significantly reduce likelihood of conviction)
- State v. Notch, 446 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 1989) (underlying conduct may inform crime against a person analysis)
- State v. Reynolds, 243 Minn. 196 (Minn. 1954) (disorderly conduct should be sufficient even with single witness)
- State v. Nunn, 297 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1980) (underlying facts considered for ‘crime against a person’)