anti-marital fact privilege in Arizona

2018Craig, however, argues that the criminal damage charge is the only charge to which the exception to the anti-marital fact privilege applies and such testimony should be precluded for the other charged offenses pursuant to the privilege. ¶ 7 The legislative purpose of the privilege is "to support the peace and tranquility of families and to protect the marital relation[ship]." Whitaker , 112 Ariz. at 540 , 544 P.2d at 222 .

2018Craig, however, argues that the criminal damage charge is the only charge to which the exception to the anti-marital fact privilege applies and such testimony should be precluded for the other charged offenses pursuant to the privilege. ¶ 7 The legislative purpose of the privilege is "to support the peace and tranquility of families and to protect the marital relation[ship]." Whitaker , 112 Ariz. at 540 , 544 P.2d at 222 .

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2008Id. at 502 , 844 P.2d at 1152 ; see also State v. Whitaker, 112 Ariz. 537, 540 , 544 P.2d 219, 222 (1975) (“The anti-marital fact privilege, as distinguished from the privilege for confidential communications between a husband and wife ... under Arizona law gives a criminal defendant, except in enumerated types of cases, an absolute right to prevent his or her spouse from being called as a witness.”); State v. Drury, 110 Ariz. 447, 451 , 520 P.2d 495, 499 (1974) (holding that the anti-marital fact privilege “operates to absolutely disqualify a spouse as a witness for or against the other witho

2008Id. at 502 , 844 P.2d at 1152 ; see also State v. Whitaker, 112 Ariz. 537, 540 , 544 P.2d 219, 222 (1975) (“The anti-marital fact privilege, as distinguished from the privilege for confidential communications between a husband and wife ... under Arizona law gives a criminal defendant, except in enumerated types of cases, an absolute right to prevent his or her spouse from being called as a witness.”); State v. Drury, 110 Ariz. 447, 451 , 520 P.2d 495, 499 (1974) (holding that the anti-marital fact privilege “operates to absolutely disqualify a spouse as a witness for or against the other witho

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2018This testimonial privilege, known as the anti-marital fact privilege, enables a defendant-spouse in a criminal proceeding "to prevent the other spouse from testifying." Blazek v. Superior Court , 177 Ariz. 535 , 538, 869 P.2d 509 (App. 1994). 1 ¶ 8 The anti-marital fact privilege, though rooted in common law, has existed in Arizona in some statutory form since before statehood.

2018This testimonial privilege, known as the anti-marital fact privilege, enables a defendant-spouse in a criminal proceeding "to prevent the other spouse from testifying." Blazek v. Superior Court , 177 Ariz. 535 , 538, 869 P.2d 509 (App. 1994). 1 ¶ 8 The anti-marital fact privilege, though rooted in common law, has existed in Arizona in some statutory form since before statehood.

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2018As our supreme court has recognized, the Arizona Legislature has "made it clear that it places paramount importance on the marital relationship and believes the privilege is necessary to protect that relationship from the strain which would be placed upon it if spouses were allowed to testify against each other." Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , 126 Ariz. 293 , 298, 614 P.2d 835 , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.

2018See State v. Olquin , 216 Ariz. 250 , 254, ¶ 22, 165 P.3d 228 , 232 (App. 2007) (observing that a DUI is considered a victimless crime because it can be committed absent involvement of any other person); State v. Sorkhabi , 202 Ariz. 450 , 453, ¶ 11, 46 P.3d 1071 , 1074 (App. 2002) (a "victimless crime" is "a crime which generally involves only the criminal, and which has no direct victim"); Weston v. State , 49 Ariz. 183 , 186, 65 P.2d 652 (1937) (noting DUI legislation enacted because "driving an automobile under these circumstances is such a menace to public safety"). ¶ 17 The City next arg

2018See State v. Olquin , 216 Ariz. 250 , 254, ¶ 22, 165 P.3d 228 , 232 (App. 2007) (observing that a DUI is considered a victimless crime because it can be committed absent involvement of any other person); State v. Sorkhabi , 202 Ariz. 450 , 453, ¶ 11, 46 P.3d 1071 , 1074 (App. 2002) (a "victimless crime" is "a crime which generally involves only the criminal, and which has no direct victim"); Weston v. State , 49 Ariz. 183 , 186, 65 P.2d 652 (1937) (noting DUI legislation enacted because "driving an automobile under these circumstances is such a menace to public safety"). ¶ 17 The City next arg

2018See Bayardi , 230 Ariz. at 197 , ¶ 7 , 281 P.3d at 1065 (court sua sponte accepted special action jurisdiction). ¶ 6 Accordingly, we review the superior court's ruling on the applicability of the anti-marital fact privilege for an abuse of discretion.

2018See Bayardi , 230 Ariz. at 197 , ¶ 7 , 281 P.3d at 1065 (court sua sponte accepted special action jurisdiction). ¶ 6 Accordingly, we review the superior court's ruling on the applicability of the anti-marital fact privilege for an abuse of discretion.

2018See State v. Whitaker , 112 Ariz. 537 , 542, 544 P.2d 219 (1975) ; see also State v. Cooperman , 232 Ariz. 347 , 349 ¶ 7, 306 P.3d 4 (2013).

2018See State v. Whitaker , 112 Ariz. 537 , 542, 544 P.2d 219 (1975) ; see also State v. Cooperman , 232 Ariz. 347 , 349 ¶ 7, 306 P.3d 4 (2013).

2008Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40, 43, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 84, 87 (App.2006). ¶ 7 Arizona recognizes two marital privileges: the anti-marital fact privilege and the marital communications privilege.

2008Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40, 43, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 84, 87 (App.2006). ¶ 7 Arizona recognizes two marital privileges: the anti-marital fact privilege and the marital communications privilege.

2008“Statutes relating to the same subject matter should be read in pari materia to determine legislative intent and to maintain harmony.” Goulder v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div., 177 Ariz. 414 , 416, 868 P.2d 997 , 999 (App. 1993); see State v. Thomason, 162 Ariz. 363, 366 , 783 P.2d 809, 812 (App.1989) (“A statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes which relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose.”) (citing State ex rel.

2008“Statutes relating to the same subject matter should be read in pari materia to determine legislative intent and to maintain harmony.” Goulder v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div., 177 Ariz. 414 , 416, 868 P.2d 997 , 999 (App. 1993); see State v. Thomason, 162 Ariz. 363, 366 , 783 P.2d 809, 812 (App.1989) (“A statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes which relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose.”) (citing State ex rel.

1980See United States v. Hicks, 420 F.Supp. 533 (N.D.Tex.1976).