A person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases:
1. A husband for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, as to events occurring during the marriage, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, without consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. These exceptions do not apply in a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by the husband against the wife, or by the wife against the husband, nor in a criminal action or proceeding against the husband for abandonment, failure to support or provide for or failure or neglect to furnish the necessities of life to the wife or the minor children. Either spouse may be examined as a witness for or against the other in a prosecution for an offense listed in section 13-706, subsection F, paragraph 1, for bigamy or adultery, committed by either spouse, or for sexual assault committed by the husband if either of the following occurs:
(a) Before testifying, the testifying spouse makes a voluntary statement to a law enforcement officer during an investigation of the offense or offenses about the events that gave rise to the prosecution or about any statements made to the spouse by the other spouse about those events.
(b) Either spouse requests to testify.
2. An attorney, without consent of the attorney's client, as to any communication made by the client to the attorney, or the attorney's advice given in the course of professional employment.
3. A clergyman or priest, without consent of the person making the confession, as to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs.
4. A physician or surgeon, without consent of the physician's or surgeon's patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician or surgeon to prescribe or act for the patient.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
95
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
State v. Williams
State v. Williams (1982)
ariz · cites it 22×
“A.R.S. § 13-4062 states: A person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases.”
State v. Harrod (2001)
ariz · cites it 8×
“9, 1997, at 21. Harrod challenges this ruling arguing that certain of his acts were intended as confidential communications.”
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court (2003)
arizctapp · cites it 12×
“§§ 8— 805(B) (1999), 13-3620 (2001); see also A.R.S. §§ 13-4062 (the husband-wife privilege does not apply to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed against the other spouse), 46^453(A) (1997) (duty to report the abuse or neglect of an adult).”
State v. Archibeque (2009)
arizctapp · cites it 18×
“A.R.S. § 13-4062(3). 1 ¶ 7 A determination of whether the clergy-penitent privilege applies involves a three-step inquiry: (1) Is the person who received the confession a “clergyman or priest”? (2) Was the confession made while the clergyman or priest was acting in his…”
State v. Harrod (2008)
ariz · cites it 8×
“4 In addition, the superior court ruled that a 1998 amendment to A.R.S. § 13-4062(1) was a procedural change that did not implicate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Federal and Arizona Constitutions.”
State v. Miles (2005)
arizctapp · cites it 6×
“1 See A.R.S. § 13-4062(4) (“A physician or surgeon .”
State v. Wilson (2001)
arizctapp · cites it 7×
“” § 13-4062(4). That is to say, a patient may trigger the privilege by consulting with a physician even though the patient has ulterior motives in seeking or obtaining treatment.”
Waters v. O'CONNOR (2004)
arizctapp · cites it 17×
“We hold that whether a person is a clergyman of a particular religious organization under A.R.S. § 13-4062(3) should be determined by that organization’s ecclesiastical rules, customs and laws.”
United States v. Banks (2009)
ca9 · cites it 6×
“See Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-4062 & 13-604 (eliminating the privilege in cases involving any "dangerous crime against children" and "[s]exual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age"); Ark.”
State v. Mincey (1984)
ariz · cites it 6×
“PHYSICIAN/PATIENT PRIVILEGE Appellant asserts that none of the physicians who treated him after he was shot should have been allowed to testify at the third trial because of the physician/patient privilege granted by A.R.S. § 13-4062(4). The state responds that whatever…”
State v. Melendez (1992)
ariz · cites it 8×
“*71 DISCUSSION The DOC regulations grant prisoners the right to representation by retained counsel, willing inmates, or prison staff in prison disciplinary hearings.”
State v. Adamson (1983)
ariz · cites it 4×
“[4] For purposes of this discussion we will assume that an attorney-client relationship did in fact exist under A.R.S. § 13-4062(2). [5] Instruction No. 13 read as follows: "The defendant has produced evidence that he was not present at the time and place the alleged crime was…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(1) — 17 cases
State v. Williams (1982)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-4062 states: A person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases.”
State v. Harrod (2001)
ariz
“9, 1997, at 21. Harrod challenges this ruling arguing that certain of his acts were intended as confidential communications.”
State v. Harrod (2008)
ariz
“4 In addition, the superior court ruled that a 1998 amendment to A.R.S. § 13-4062(1) was a procedural change that did not implicate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Federal and Arizona Constitutions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(2) — 19 cases
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court (2003)
arizctapp
“§§ 8— 805(B) (1999), 13-3620 (2001); see also A.R.S. §§ 13-4062 (the husband-wife privilege does not apply to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed against the other spouse), 46^453(A) (1997) (duty to report the abuse or neglect of an adult).”
State v. Adamson (1983)
ariz
“[4] For purposes of this discussion we will assume that an attorney-client relationship did in fact exist under A.R.S. § 13-4062(2). [5] Instruction No. 13 read as follows: "The defendant has produced evidence that he was not present at the time and place the alleged crime was…”
State v. Melendez (1992)
ariz
“*71 DISCUSSION The DOC regulations grant prisoners the right to representation by retained counsel, willing inmates, or prison staff in prison disciplinary hearings.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(3) — 4 cases
State v. Archibeque (2009)
arizctapp
“A.R.S. § 13-4062(3). 1 ¶ 7 A determination of whether the clergy-penitent privilege applies involves a three-step inquiry: (1) Is the person who received the confession a “clergyman or priest”? (2) Was the confession made while the clergyman or priest was acting in his…”
Waters v. O'CONNOR (2004)
arizctapp
“We hold that whether a person is a clergyman of a particular religious organization under A.R.S. § 13-4062(3) should be determined by that organization’s ecclesiastical rules, customs and laws.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(4) — 34 cases
State v. Miles (2005)
arizctapp
“1 See A.R.S. § 13-4062(4) (“A physician or surgeon .”
State v. Wilson (2001)
arizctapp
“” § 13-4062(4). That is to say, a patient may trigger the privilege by consulting with a physician even though the patient has ulterior motives in seeking or obtaining treatment.”
State v. Mincey (1984)
ariz
“PHYSICIAN/PATIENT PRIVILEGE Appellant asserts that none of the physicians who treated him after he was shot should have been allowed to testify at the third trial because of the physician/patient privilege granted by A.R.S. § 13-4062(4). The state responds that whatever…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(A)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(A)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(l)(a) — 1 case
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.