Husbands and wives may be introduced by each other as witnesses in all cases, civil or criminal, and shall be competent witnesses in their own behalf, as against each other, in all controversies between them. Either spouse is a competent witness and may be compelled to testify against the other in any criminal prosecution of either husband or wife for a criminal act against any child, for contributing to the neglect or delinquency of a child, or desertion or nonsupport of children under the age of sixteen (16) years, or abandonment of children. But in all other instances where either of them is a party litigant the other shall not be competent as a witness and shall not be required to answer interrogatories or to make discovery of any matters involved in any such other instances without the consent of both.
Codes, 1857, ch. 61, art. 193; 1871, §§ 759, 760; 1880, § 1601; 1892, § 1739; 1906, § 1916; Hemingway's 1917, § 1576; 1930, § 1528; 1942, § 1689; Laws, 1928, ch. 35; Laws, 1954, ch. 236; Laws, 1978, ch. 395, § 1, eff. 7/1/1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
41
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case:
Stevens v. State, 806 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2001).
Stevens v. State, 806 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2001).
· cites it 3× “We find that Stevens erroneously relies on Miss.Code Ann. § 13-1-5 (Supp. 2001). Stevens argues that Miss.”
Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66 (Miss. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-5 (Rev.2002), superceded by Miss.”
Hood v. State, 17 So. 3d 548 (Miss. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Miss.Code Ann. § 13-1-5 (Rev.2002). [4] "There are two areas of law which govern if and when one spouse may testify against the other, spousal competency and marital privilege.”
McNeese v. McNeese, 119 So. 3d 264 (Miss. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Kenton asserts that the chancellor erred in allowing Christa to testify regarding matters protected under the spousal privilege. ¶ 36. The spousal privilege is codified in Mississippi Code Section 13-1-5, which provides that spouses generally are not competent witnesses against…”
Ladner v. State, 584 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 1991).
“Rule 504 gives a defendant the privilege of prohibiting his or her spouse from testifying as to any confidential communication between the spouses. Neither an out-of-court statement nor trial testimony of his wife was admitted against Ladner.”
Shell v. State, 554 So. 2d 887 (Miss. 1989).
“*895 The privilege protected by Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-5 extends only to communications which are intended to be confidential.”
Dowbak v. State, 666 So. 2d 1377 (Miss. 1996).
· cites it 3× “First, that Lisa's discussions with Lindley violated Rule 504 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence (husband-wife privilege); ( See also Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-5 ) and second, that Lisa's conversations with Lindley violated Rule 502 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence…”
Davis v. State, 472 So. 2d 428 (Miss. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The basis of the motion was the statutory incompetency of a spouse as a witness set forth in Miss Code Ann. § 13-1-5. The trial court ruled that the state could bring out the fact of the telephone conversation but would not be allowed to go into the substance of the conversation.”
Hall v. State, 539 So. 2d 1338 (Miss. 1989).
“Here again, Rule 601 declares every person is competent to be a witness "except as restricted by Miss. Code Ann. §§ 13-1-5 and 13-1-11, or by these rules," envisioning, as does Rule 802, a partnership in the rule-making process between the courts and the legislature.”
Fisher v. State, 690 So. 2d 268 (Miss. 1996).
“Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-5 (1972) (Supp. 1995) excepts from spousal incompetency a spouse's testimony in the criminal prosecution of the other for a criminal act against any child.”
Fanning v. State, 497 So. 2d 70 (Miss. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Fanning in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-5 (1972). That statute provides in part that: ".”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-5(2010) — 1 case
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.