11 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re a Grand Jury Subpoenagreen2 sentences2015Generally speaking, the spousal privilege applies to testimony that would be given by one spouse in a criminal trial against the other spouse. 18 See id. at 90-93 . 2015A spouse who testifies before a grand jury will not be deemed to have waived the spousal privilege at a later proceeding because “if there is no privilege not to testify before a grand jury, then no privilege has been waived by giving such testimony.” Id. at 98 . 18 In Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena, 447 Mass. at 99 , this court did not decide “whether, or to what extent, the spousal privilege may be invoked in pretrial (or posttrial) proceedings.” Given that the evidentiary hearing at issue in the present case was not a pretrial proceeding against Farak, we do not consider the scope of the s | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Szerlonggreen2 sentences2015“The purpose of the spousal privilege is to protect the relationship of marriage from the potential harm of *119 one spouse giving adverse testimony against the other.” Commonwealth v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858, 869 (2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1494 (2011). 2011That’s because at the time he knew he was driving drunk and at the time he . . . knew that she was the only other person that was involved.” The comment was improper because it could be understood to imply that Liptak married Serre in an attempt to keep her from testifying against him. 9 See Commonwealth v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858, 869 (2010) cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1494 (2011) (“Because the spousal privilege belongs to the witness spouse, not the defendant spouse, and because the defendant cannot compel the spouse’s testimony, no inference is appropriate from the failure of a spouse to testif | 2 | 2 |
Lambert v. Felkergreen2 sentences2015“The purpose of the spousal privilege is to protect the relationship of marriage from the potential harm of *119 one spouse giving adverse testimony against the other.” Commonwealth v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858, 869 (2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1494 (2011). 2011That’s because at the time he knew he was driving drunk and at the time he . . . knew that she was the only other person that was involved.” The comment was improper because it could be understood to imply that Liptak married Serre in an attempt to keep her from testifying against him. 9 See Commonwealth v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858, 869 (2010) cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1494 (2011) (“Because the spousal privilege belongs to the witness spouse, not the defendant spouse, and because the defendant cannot compel the spouse’s testimony, no inference is appropriate from the failure of a spouse to testif | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Fishergreen1 sentence2010See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 433 Mass. 340, 350 (2001) (with advance warning that witness might refuse to testify, voir dire may be held to “ascertain whether the witness will assert some privilege or otherwise refuse to answer questions”). | 1 | 1 |
Trammel v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2010See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 44 (1980) (“modern justification for this privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Galvingreen1 sentence2006“When the meaning of any particular section or clause of a statute is questioned, it is proper, no doubt, to look into the other parts of the statute.” Commonwealth v. Galvin, 388 Mass. 326, 328 (1983), quoting Holbrook v. Holbrook, 1 Pick. 248 , 250 (1823). | 1 | 1 |
Mikshis v. Palionisgreen1 sentence2002That determination, while material to the respective rights of Jean’s estate and Nina Millen, see Mikshis v. Palionis, 345 Mass. 316, 318 (1963), does not squarely address the plaintiff’s spousal claim. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stokesgreen2 sentences1984The defendant, who would have been precluded from challenging a failure adequately to advise his wife of the spousal privilege before she gave direct testimony adverse to him at trial, Commonwealth v. Stokes, supra, cannot improve his position by attacking impeachment evidence resulting from such an omission at a prior proceeding. 1984See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 374 Mass. 583, 595 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. DiPietrogreen1 sentence1982We therefore discuss this issue solely on the basis of Federal constitutional law. 4 In Commonwealth v. DiPietro, 373 Mass. 369, 390 (1977), the judge allowed the defendant’s wife to invoke the spousal privilege in front of the jury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Paszko
green
2 sentences2006In Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164 , 189-190 n.29 (1984), we declined to rule whether the spousal privilege was applicable in grand jury proceedings, but noted, as does the Commonwealth here, that the statute appeared to create a privilege that could be invoked only in a “trial” of a “criminal proceeding against” the witness’s spouse. 1985Putting to one side whether a witness may validly assert the spousal privilege if summoned to appear and testify before a grand jury (see Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164 , 189 n.29 [1984]), we find no error in the denial of the motion. | 2 | 1985–2006 |
Borman v. Borman
green
1 sentence2018Discovery orders may direct a witness to testify at a deposition about information that a witness claims would be self-incriminating, see id . at 781-782, 393 N.E.2d 847 , or that a witness claims is protected by various privileges other than the attorney-client privilege, such as the spousal privilege or the psychotherapist-patient privilege. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. King
green
1 sentence2015“The waiver [of a testimonial privilege], once made, waives the privilege only with respect to the same proceeding; the witness may once again invoke the privilege in any subsequent proceeding.” Commonwealth v. King, 436 Mass. 252 , 258 n.6 (2002). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schindler v. Clerk of Circuit Court
green
1 sentence2006Keefe v. Massachusetts, 465 U.S. 1068 (1984). 2 The spousal privilege not to testify is conferred by the second paragraph of G. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Three Juveniles v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2006The fourth paragraph was added to § 20 in response to this court’s decision in Three Juveniles v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. 357 (1983), where a sharply divided court declined to recognize a privilege that would allow a child to refuse to testify against a parent. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Burke
green
1 sentence1999In fact, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has stated explicitly in Commonwealth v. Burke, “We intimate no opinion whether the spousal privilege may be invoked during a grand jury investigation.” Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.