5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gradygreen1 sentence2025See State v. Grady, 811 So. 2d 829, 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“We reject [the wife]’s argument and conclude that although the husband-wife privilege may apply to exclude testimony as to confidential marital communications, the privilege does not require suppression of admissible evidence gathered through law enforcement’s investigation of her, and it does not bar her criminal prosecution.”); see also Kerlin v. State, 352 So. 2d 45, 52 (Fla. 1977) (discussing how the privilege is narrowly construed and does not cover one spouse’s observations of the other spouse’s criminal actions). | 1 | 1 |
Bolin v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Bolin v. State, 642 So.2d 540 (Fla.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Donaldson v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Accord Donaldson v. State, 369 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (admission of confidential husband-wife communications not reversible unless absent admission of the evidence there would have been a different result at trial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kerlin v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See State v. Grady, 811 So. 2d 829, 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“We reject [the wife]’s argument and conclude that although the husband-wife privilege may apply to exclude testimony as to confidential marital communications, the privilege does not require suppression of admissible evidence gathered through law enforcement’s investigation of her, and it does not bar her criminal prosecution.”); see also Kerlin v. State, 352 So. 2d 45, 52 (Fla. 1977) (discussing how the privilege is narrowly construed and does not cover one spouse’s observations of the other spouse’s criminal actions). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bolin v. State
green
1 sentence2002Consequently, there is no illegality upon which to found the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ argument.” Although the Florida Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue, in Bolin v. State, 650 So.2d 21 (Fla.1995), the court addressed the testimonial protections afforded by the husband-wife privilege. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Koon v. State
green
1 sentence2001Similarly, in Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201 (Fla.1985), when ruling on the admission of evidence that was covered by the husband-wife privilege, this Court did not make a per se pronouncement of reversible error but reversed based on the fact that privileged information was not harmless when viewed with the other evidence in the record. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Arata
green
1 sentence1984In the recent case of State v. Arata, 438 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court affirmed a trial court's order granting a wife's motion to suppress intercepted telephone conversations between her and her husband concerning joint criminal activity, which conversations had been obtained by a court-authorized order. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.