9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carlyle v. Stategreen2 sentences2003However, the marital privilege is not absolute. "[Wlhere a spouse's testimony concerns disclosures by the other spouse not made in reliance upon the marital relationship but because the disclosing spouse was in need of his mate's assistance and attempted to coerce by force and fear, the testimony is not within the spousal privilege and is admissible." Id.; see also Carlyle v. State, 428 N.E.2d 10, 12 (Ind.1981). 2001Carlyle v. State, 428 N.E.2d 10, 12 (Ind.1981); see Rode, 524 N.E.2d at 800 . | 2 | 2 |
Russell v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Russell v. State, 743 N.E.2d 269 (Ind.2001) (holding that the admission of the defendant’s wife’s testimony in violation of the spousal privilege was harmless error). 2003Also not privileged are "[clommunications *1156 between spouses intended to be transmitted to a third person." Russell, 743 N.E.2d at 272 (citing Perkins v. State, 483 N.E.2d 1379, 1383 (Ind.1985)). | 1 | 2 |
Holt v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Holt v. State, 481 N.E.2d 1324, 1326 (Ind.1985). 2007Holt v. State, 481 N.E.2d 1324, 1326 (Ind.1985). | 1 | 2 |
Baggett v. Stategreen1 sentence2014And the testimony of Windhorn’s wife could either have been voluntary through her own waiver of the spousal privilege, see Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 2005) (noting that Indiana’s spousal privilege “does not bar the spouse from testifying if the spouse chooses to do so”), or the court could have compelled Windhorn’s wife to testify under our child protection laws, see Baggett v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1244, 1245 (Ind. 1987) (“the privileged communication between a husband and wife is not a ground for excluding evidence in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report of a child who may | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chrismoregreen2 sentences2004State v. Chrismore, 223 Iowa 957 , 274 N.W. 3, 5 (1937) (holding that [when the marriage ceremony is performed, no matter what the motive was or may be, the witness thenceforward becomes the lawful wife of defendant, and is prohibited under our statute from testifying against her husband, except where the offense is by the husband against her person.") Additionally, we believe accepting the State's position would allow for the creation of numerous "exceptions" to the spousal privilege and create undue uncertainty in its application if courts were to routinely inquire into the "quality" of a ma 2004State v. Chrismore, 223 Iowa 957 , 274 N.W. 3, 5 (1937) (holding that [when the marriage ceremony is performed, no matter what the motive was or may be, the witness thenceforward becomes the lawful wife of defendant, and is prohibited under our statute from testifying against her husband, except where the offense is by the husband against her person.") Additionally, we believe accepting the State's position would allow for the creation of numerous "exceptions" to the spousal privilege and create undue uncertainty in its application if courts were to routinely inquire into the "quality" of a ma | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2004The spousal privilege is subject to waiver where the defendant gives direct testimony concerning his communication with his spouse during the time in question, Taylor v. State, 567 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Perkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Also not privileged are "[clommunications *1156 between spouses intended to be transmitted to a third person." Russell, 743 N.E.2d at 272 (citing Perkins v. State, 483 N.E.2d 1379, 1383 (Ind.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Rode v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Carlyle v. State, 428 N.E.2d 10, 12 (Ind.1981); see Rode, 524 N.E.2d at 800 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stevens v. State
green
2 sentences1978In Stevens v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 396 , 354 N.E.2d 727 , we held that notwithstanding frequent broad statements in the opinions of this Court that the defense of insanity opens the doors to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the assertion of such defense did not render admissible a communication excludable under the spousal privilege. 1978In Stevens v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 396 , 354 N.E.2d 727 , we held that notwithstanding frequent broad statements in the opinions of this Court that the defense of insanity opens the doors to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the assertion of such defense did not render admissible a communication excludable under the spousal privilege. | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Glover v. State
green
1 sentence2014And the testimony of Windhorn’s wife could either have been voluntary through her own waiver of the spousal privilege, see Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 2005) (noting that Indiana’s spousal privilege “does not bar the spouse from testifying if the spouse chooses to do so”), or the court could have compelled Windhorn’s wife to testify under our child protection laws, see Baggett v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1244, 1245 (Ind. 1987) (“the privileged communication between a husband and wife is not a ground for excluding evidence in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report of a child who may | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shepherd v. State
green
2 sentences2004Shepherd, 257 Ind. at 232-33 , 277 N.E.2d at 167 . 2004Shepherd, 257 Ind. at 232-33 , 277 N.E.2d at 167 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Beyerline v. State
green
2 sentences2004Beyerline, 147 Ind. at 130 , 45 N.E. at 774 . 2004Beyerline, 147 Ind. at 130 , 45 N.E. at 774 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Farber
green
1 sentence1998State v. Farber, 677 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.