marital communications privilege in North Carolina

2022Whatever is known by reason of that intimacy should be regarded as knowledge confidentially acquired, and neither spouse should be allowed to divulge it to the danger or disgrace of the other.”) (quoting State v. Rollins, 363 N.C. 232, 236 (2009), and Hicks v. Hicks, 271 N.C. 204, 205 (1967)). ¶ 13 Not so here.

2021Rollins, 363 N.C. at 237 , 675 S.E.2d at 337 (emphasis added) (citation, quotation marks and ellipses omitted). ¶9 The State contends that defendant failed to object to the statements at issue on appeal, and thus the issue is not preserved.

2022Whatever is known by reason of that intimacy should be regarded as knowledge confidentially acquired, and neither spouse should be allowed to divulge it to the danger or disgrace of the other.”) (quoting State v. Rollins, 363 N.C. 232, 236 (2009), and Hicks v. Hicks, 271 N.C. 204, 205 (1967)). ¶ 13 Not so here.

2016Wright v. Wright , 281 N.C. 159 , 166-67, 188 S.E.2d 317 , 322 (1972) ; see Biggs v. Biggs , 253 N.C. 10 , 16, 116 S.E.2d 178 , 183 (1960) ("[A]n act of intercourse between husband and wife is a confidential communication."), overruled in part by Hicks , 271 N.C. at 207 , 155 S.E.2d at 802 (declining to follow Biggs "where there [was] a completely different factual situation").

2009When defining a confidential communication in the context of the marital communications privilege, this Court has asked "whether the communication... was induced by the marital relationship and prompted by the affection, confidence, and loyalty engendered by such relationship." State v. Freeman, 302 N.C. 591, 598 , 276 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1981) (citations omitted); see also Holmes, 330 N.C. at 828 , 412 S.E.2d at 661 (stating a confidential communication is "information privately disclosed between a husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship" (citing Trammel, 445 U.S. 40 , 100

2009When defining a confidential communication in the context of the marital communications privilege, this Court has asked "whether the communication... was induced by the marital relationship and prompted by the affection, confidence, and loyalty engendered by such relationship." State v. Freeman, 302 N.C. 591, 598 , 276 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1981) (citations omitted); see also Holmes, 330 N.C. at 828 , 412 S.E.2d at 661 (stating a confidential communication is "information privately disclosed between a husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship" (citing Trammel, 445 U.S. 40 , 100

2009When defining a confidential communication in the context of the marital communications privilege, this Court has asked "whether the communication... was induced by the marital relationship and prompted by the affection, confidence, and loyalty engendered by such relationship." State v. Freeman, 302 N.C. 591, 598 , 276 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1981) (citations omitted); see also Holmes, 330 N.C. at 828 , 412 S.E.2d at 661 (stating a confidential communication is "information privately disclosed between a husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship" (citing Trammel, 445 U.S. 40 , 100

2009When defining a confidential communication in the context of the marital communications privilege, this Court has asked "whether the communication... was induced by the marital relationship and prompted by the affection, confidence, and loyalty engendered by such relationship." State v. Freeman, 302 N.C. 591, 598 , 276 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1981) (citations omitted); see also Holmes, 330 N.C. at 828 , 412 S.E.2d at 661 (stating a confidential communication is "information privately disclosed between a husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship" (citing Trammel, 445 U.S. 40 , 100

2016See Holmes , 330 N.C. at 833 -34 , 412 S.E.2d at 664-65 ; see also State v. Williams , 286 N.C. 422 , 431, 212 S.E.2d 113 , 119 (1975) ("[A] statute must be construed, if possible, so as to give effect to every part of it, it being presumed that the Legislature did not intend any of its provisions to be surplusage." (citation omitted)); In re Hickerson , 235 N.C. 716 , 721, 71 S.E.2d 129 , 132 (1952) ("[P]arts of the same statute, and dealing with the same subject, are to be considered and interpreted as a whole, and in such case it is the accepted principle of statutory construction that ever

2016See Holmes , 330 N.C. at 833 -34 , 412 S.E.2d at 664-65 ; see also State v. Williams , 286 N.C. 422 , 431, 212 S.E.2d 113 , 119 (1975) ("[A] statute must be construed, if possible, so as to give effect to every part of it, it being presumed that the Legislature did not intend any of its provisions to be surplusage." (citation omitted)); In re Hickerson , 235 N.C. 716 , 721, 71 S.E.2d 129 , 132 (1952) ("[P]arts of the same statute, and dealing with the same subject, are to be considered and interpreted as a whole, and in such case it is the accepted principle of statutory construction that ever

2016Wright v. Wright , 281 N.C. 159 , 166-67, 188 S.E.2d 317 , 322 (1972) ; see Biggs v. Biggs , 253 N.C. 10 , 16, 116 S.E.2d 178 , 183 (1960) ("[A]n act of intercourse between husband and wife is a confidential communication."), overruled in part by Hicks , 271 N.C. at 207 , 155 S.E.2d at 802 (declining to follow Biggs "where there [was] a completely different factual situation").

2016Wright v. Wright , 281 N.C. 159 , 166-67, 188 S.E.2d 317 , 322 (1972) ; see Biggs v. Biggs , 253 N.C. 10 , 16, 116 S.E.2d 178 , 183 (1960) ("[A]n act of intercourse between husband and wife is a confidential communication."), overruled in part by Hicks , 271 N.C. at 207 , 155 S.E.2d at 802 (declining to follow Biggs "where there [was] a completely different factual situation").

2009See Hicks v. Hicks, 271 N.C. 204, 205 , 155 S.E.2d 799, 800 (1967) ("`[W]hatever is known by reason of that intimacy [marriage] should be regarded as knowledge confidentially acquired, and that neither [husband nor wife] should be allowed to divulge it to the danger or disgrace of the other.'" (quoting State v. Jolly, 20 N.C. 108, 112 (1838) (alterations in the original))).

2009See Hicks v. Hicks, 271 N.C. 204, 205 , 155 S.E.2d 799, 800 (1967) (“ ‘[W]hatever is known by reason of that intimacy [marriage] should be regarded as knowledge confidentially acquired, and that neither [husband nor wife] should be allowed to divulge it to the danger or disgrace of the other.’ ” (quoting State v. Jolly, 20 N.C. 86, 89 , 20 N.C. 108, 112 (1838) (alterations in the original))).

2009When defining a confidential communication in the context of the marital communications privilege, this Court has asked "whether the communication... was induced by the marital relationship and prompted by the affection, confidence, and loyalty engendered by such relationship." State v. Freeman, 302 N.C. 591, 598 , 276 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1981) (citations omitted); see also Holmes, 330 N.C. at 828 , 412 S.E.2d at 661 (stating a confidential communication is "information privately disclosed between a husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship" (citing Trammel, 445 U.S. 40 , 100

2009When defining a confidential communication in the context of the marital communications privilege, this Court has asked "whether the communication... was induced by the marital relationship and prompted by the affection, confidence, and loyalty engendered by such relationship." State v. Freeman, 302 N.C. 591, 598 , 276 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1981) (citations omitted); see also Holmes, 330 N.C. at 828 , 412 S.E.2d at 661 (stating a confidential communication is "information privately disclosed between a husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship" (citing Trammel, 445 U.S. 40 , 100

2009See Hicks v. Hicks, 271 N.C. 204, 205 , 155 S.E.2d 799, 800 (1967) (“ ‘[W]hatever is known by reason of that intimacy [marriage] should be regarded as knowledge confidentially acquired, and that neither [husband nor wife] should be allowed to divulge it to the danger or disgrace of the other.’ ” (quoting State v. Jolly, 20 N.C. 86, 89 , 20 N.C. 108, 112 (1838) (alterations in the original))).