Wilson v. State, 213 A.3d 655

Darrayl Wilson was accused of murder; his girlfriend, Kearra Bannister, told police he and another man killed the victim.
While awaiting trial, Wilson arranged a telephone "marriage" to Bannister so she could invoke the statutory spousal privilege and avoid testifying.
Bannister attempted to assert the spousal privilege at a co-defendant’s trial; the trial judge ordered her to testify and a circuit court later ruled Wilson’s marriage invalid.
The State separately charged Wilson with witness tampering and obstruction of justice, alleging he used “corrupt means” by marrying to silence a witness.
A jury convicted Wilson of one count each of witness tampering and obstruction; he appealed, arguing the evidence failed to show the required “corrupt means.”
The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that marrying to invoke a valid spousal privilege is not criminal “corrupt means” under Maryland law and adopting the prevailing rule that sham marriages do not defeat the spousal testimonial privilege.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence established “corrupt means” for witness tampering and obstruction when defendant married a witness to silence her	Wilson’s telephonic marriage was a fraudulent act intended to impede testimony and thus satisfied the statutes’ “corrupt means” element	Even if the marriage was entered to avoid testimony, invoking the spousal privilege is lawful; intent to invoke the privilege cannot be criminalized as “corrupt means”	Reversed: as a matter of law, marrying to invoke a statutory spousal privilege does not constitute the “corrupt means” element of witness tampering or obstruction

Brown v. State, 359 Md. 180 (recognizing Maryland’s historical spousal/confidential-communications privileges)
Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 462 (discussing early statutory development of spousal competency rules)
State v. Walker, 345 Md. 293 (noting the prevailing national rule that sham marriages generally do not defeat the spousal privilege)
Hagez v. State, 110 Md. App. 194 (dicta supporting that a valid marriage, not motive, determines privilege availability)
Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (U.S. Supreme Court holding fraudulent marriages for immigration fraud rendered spouses competent to testify; distinguished)
State v. Peters, 444 S.E.2d 609 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (adopting rule that motives do not defeat a valid marriage-based spousal privilege)
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 39 A.3d 341 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (refusing to imply a collusive-marriage exception to statutory privilege)