Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marital Communications Privilege topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill Would Let Domestic‑violence Victims Introduce Spousal Communications in Trial
Summary
Delegate Simpson reintroduced HB 241 to carve out an exception to the marital communications privilege for criminal actions alleging assault or other specified crimes against a spouse; prosecutors and domestic‑violence advocates supported the change while the Maryland State Bar Association discussed the legal and policy history.
Delegate Simpson told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 241 would create an exception to the marital communications privilege in criminal actions alleging abuse against a spouse so a victim could introduce communications from the alleged perpetrator as evidence.
Brett Engler, a Frederick County prosecutor and chief of the domestic violence unit, said Maryland is among a small number of states without a statutory exception that allows a spouse to introduce communications by the other spouse in prosecutions for crimes against the spouse. He described a case in which a victim’s testimony about an apology from a defendant was excluded under the privilege and said the exclusion had led to a reversal on appeal.
Laurie Ruth of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence supported the bill as a measure to protect victims’ autonomy and to allow juries and judges to hear admissions and other communications that can be important in delayed‑report cases. Michelle Smith of the Maryland State Bar Association Family Law Section urged the committee to consider legislative history and constitutional issues but said she supported the bill’s goals when she testified across the street; she referenced Brown v. State (359 Md. 180, 2000) while discussing the privilege’s history.
Witnesses explained the difference between the testimonial privilege (a witness’s right not to testify about what happened) and the communications privilege (a separate rule that can bar testimony about what one spouse said to the other). Sponsors said the bill would not eliminate spousal privileges generally but would permit communications to be admitted in criminal prosecutions for assaultive conduct against the spouse.
Committee members asked about the scope of crimes covered; witnesses said the exception would apply to criminal actions alleging assaultive conduct, stalking or other crimes that are by statute or rule prosecutable in the criminal code.
Ending — The bill drew support from prosecutors and domestic‑violence advocates; the committee took testimony and did not immediately vote on the measure.
