Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-21-227 (2026)
Husband and Wife for or Against One Another.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
The husband and wife may testify either for or against each other in criminal cases, but shall not be compelled so to do.
(Acts 1915, No. 826, p. 942; Code 1923, §5639; Code 1940, T. 15, §311.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1980–2011 · leading case: Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). “Nine States entitle the witness-spouse alone to assert a privilege against adverse spousal testimony: see Ala. Code § 12-21-227 (1975); Cal. Evid. Code Ann.”
Crosslin v. State, 446 So. 2d 675 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983). “) Ala.Code § 12-21-227 (1975). And, where a witness avails himself or herself of a privilege not to testify, that witness's testimony in a former proceeding may be admissible in a subsequent proceeding where the former testimony was given under oath, the issues in the subsequent…”
Stanley v. State, 143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “The marital-privilege statute as it pertains to criminal cases is codified at § 12-21-227, Ala.Code 1975, and provides: “The husband and wife may testify either for or against each other in criminal cases, but shall not be compelled so to do.”
Ex Parte Billingsley, 402 So. 2d 1060 (Ala. 1981). “See, Code 1975, § 12-21-227. The election is made by the witness-spouse and the defendant-spouse can in no way compel or prevent the testimony.”
Ziglar v. State, 629 So. 2d 43 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “The State argues that *46 even if the appellant and his wife were not divorced, admitting the wife's testimony was harmless error because her testimony was cumulative and because, if there was any harm, it was to the wife and not the appellant.”
Ex Parte Tomlin, 540 So. 2d 668 (Ala. 1988). “Code 1975, § 12-21-227, has modified the common law by providing that a spouse may elect to so testify.”
State v. Freeman, 276 S.E.2d 450 (N.C. 1981). “Five states entitle the witness-spouse alone to assert a privilege against adverse spousal testimony, with court decisions holding that these statutory provisions do not affect the common law privilege not to testify as to confidential communications within the marriage: Ala.”
State v. Mauti, 3 A.3d 624 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010). “See Ala.Code § 12-21-227 (2010); Alaska R. Evid.”
State v. Browder, 486 So. 2d 504 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “The Alabama Legislature modified the rule of incompetency in 1915, § 12-21-227, Code of Alabama 1975, and allowed the spouse to testify voluntarily.”
Montanez v. State, 592 So. 2d 650 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “1990); Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-227. Ms. Bujeiro’s providing information to law enforcement officers in the course of a drug investigation was not “testimony.”
State v. Taylor, 642 So. 2d 160 (La. 1994). “For a state law similar to Louisiana's, see Code of Alabama, § 12-21-227 and Arnold v.”
Morrison v. State, 382 So. 2d 1187 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980). “The trial court advised her in detail that, pursuant to the provisions of § 12-21-227, Code of Alabama 1975, she had the right to testify and to make that decision herself, but that she could not be compelled to testify (R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.