REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2162 Husband or wife as witness for or against other.
Sec. 2162.
(1) In a civil action or administrative proceeding, a husband shall not be examined as a witness for or against his wife without her consent or a wife for or against her husband without his consent, except as provided in subsection (3).
(2) In a criminal prosecution, a husband shall not be examined as a witness for or against his wife without his consent or a wife for or against her husband without her consent, except as provided in subsection (3).
(3) The spousal privileges established in subsections (1) and (2) and the confidential communications privilege established in subsection (7) do not apply in any of the following:
(a) In a suit for divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment.
(b) In a prosecution for bigamy.
(c) In a prosecution for a crime committed against a child of either or both or a crime committed against an individual who is younger than 18 years of age.
(d) In a cause of action that grows out of a personal wrong or injury done by one to the other or that grows out of the refusal or neglect to furnish the spouse or children with suitable support.
(e) In a case of desertion or abandonment.
(f) In a case in which the husband or wife is a party to the record in a suit, action, or proceeding if the title to the separate property of the husband or wife called or offered as a witness, or if the title to property derived from, through, or under the husband or wife called or offered as a witness, is the subject matter in controversy or litigation in the suit, action, or proceeding, in opposition to the claim or interest of the other spouse, who is a party to the record in the suit, action, or proceeding. In all such cases, the husband or wife who makes the claim of title, or under or from whom the title is derived, shall be as competent to testify in relation to the separate property and the title to the separate property without the consent of the husband or wife, who is a party to the record in the suit, action, or proceeding, as though the marriage relation did not exist.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (6), a married person or a person who has been married previously shall not be examined in a civil action or administrative proceeding as to any communication made between that person and his or her spouse or former spouse during the marriage.
(5) A married person may be examined in a civil action or administrative proceeding, with his or her consent, as to any communication made between that person and his or her spouse during the marriage regarding a matter described in subsection (3).
(6) A person who has been married previously may be examined in a civil action or administrative proceeding, with his or her consent, as to any communication made between that person and his or her former spouse during the marriage regarding a matter described in subsection (3).
(7) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a married person or a person who has been married previously shall not be examined in a criminal prosecution as to any communication made between that person and his or her spouse or former spouse during the marriage without the consent of the person to be examined.
(8) In an action or proceeding instituted by the husband or wife, in consequence of adultery, the husband and wife are not competent to testify.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 67, Imd. Eff. Apr. 11, 1994 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 182, Eff. Oct. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 11, Imd. Eff. May 29, 2001
Compiler's Notes:
Section 2 of Act 67 of 1994 reads as follows:
“This amendatory act applies to criminal cases in which a complaint and warrant are authorized on or after July 1, 1994. This amendatory act applies to civil cases which are pending on or filed on or after July 1, 1994.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
83
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
People v. Love, 391 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. 1986).
People v. Love, 391 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 22× “Defendant presents two issues for our consideration: 1) Can a defendant assert the spousal privilege provided in MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162 to prevent his spouse from testifying as to an offense committed against a third person where the defendant also committed an offense…”
People v. Fisher, 503 N.W.2d 50 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 16× “2162 may be invoked in a sentencing proceeding to preclude consideration by the sentencing court of certain extrajudicial statements made by defendant's estranged wife and set forth in the presentence report.”
People v. Warren, 615 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 10× “[MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162 (emphasis added).”
People v. Szabo, 846 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 16× “Defendant argued that Szabo was compelled to testify at the preliminary examination although she had asserted her spousal privilege, which constituted error requiring reversal.”
People v. Petrella, 380 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Petrella presents an issue regarding the Criminal Jury Instruction defining "mental anguish," CJI 20:2:11(5), and in Simpson there is a question whether the spousal privilege statute, MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162, which contains an exception for a prosecution for a crime committed…”
People v. Watkins; People v. Pullen, 818 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 2× “For example, Michigan’s marital privilege statute, MCL 600.2162(1), provides: “In a civil action or administrative proceeding, a husband shall not be examined as a witness for or against his wife without her consent or a wife for or against her husband without his consent .”
State v. Jones, 2012 Ohio 5677 (Ohio 2012).
· cites it 2× “At trial, Fisher claimed that he had accidentally stabbed the victim when he (Fisher) came to Mary’s aid as her boyfriend was physically abusing her.”
Joseph Michael Serra v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., Raymond G. Toombs, 4 F.3d 1348 (6th Cir. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2162. Thus, the district court reasoned that Holman’s representation *1352 of Serra would not present a conflict of interest because he would not be called upon to cross-examine his former client.”
People v. Hamacher, 438 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. 1989).
· cites it 6× “Worse, it is a cruel and demeaning fiction justified by no purpose other than to promote the interest of the adverse spouse and having no effect save, as in this case, to obstruct the fact-finding process and to remind us that even in 1989 we are all not equal before the law.”
Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc v. Governor, 748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “[50] It is by relying exclusively on the personal commitments expressed in the domestic-partnership agreements that the majority determines that the benefit programs at issue violate the amendment.”
People v. Wadkins, 300 N.W.2d 542 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “" MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162. It should be noted that two common law privileges are incorporated into the Michigan statute.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(1) — 3 cases
People v. Watkins; People v. Pullen, 818 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. 2012).
“For example, Michigan’s marital privilege statute, MCL 600.2162(1), provides: “In a civil action or administrative proceeding, a husband shall not be examined as a witness for or against his wife without her consent or a wife for or against her husband without his consent .”
People v. Warren, 615 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. 2000).
“[MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162 (emphasis added).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(1)(d) — 1 case
People v. Warren, 615 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. 2000).
“[MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162 (emphasis added).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(2) — 11 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(3) — 6 cases
People v. Szabo, 846 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant argued that Szabo was compelled to testify at the preliminary examination although she had asserted her spousal privilege, which constituted error requiring reversal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(3)(d) — 2 cases
People v. Szabo, 846 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant argued that Szabo was compelled to testify at the preliminary examination although she had asserted her spousal privilege, which constituted error requiring reversal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(3)(f) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(4) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(7) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(d) — 3 cases
People v. Warren, 615 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. 2000).
“[MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162 (emphasis added).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2162(l)(d) — 1 case
People v. Warren, 615 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. 2000).
“[MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162 (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.