NC General Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-56 (2026)
Husband and wife as witnesses in civil action
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 8
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In any trial or inquiry in any suit, action or proceeding in any court, or before any person having, by law or consent of parties, authority to examine witnesses or hear evidence, the husband or wife of any party thereto, or of any person in whose behalf any such suit, action or proceeding is brought, prosecuted, opposed or defended, shall, except as herein stated, be competent and compellable to give evidence, as any other witness on behalf of any party to such suit, action or proceeding. No husband or wife shall be compellable to disclose any confidential communication made by one to the other during their marriage. (1866, c. 43, ss. 3, 4; C.C.P., s. 341; Code, s. 588; Rev., s. 1636; 1919, c. 18; C.S., s. 1801; 1945, c. 635; 1977, c. 547; 1983 (Reg. Sess., 1984), c. 1037, s. 3.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1947–2021 · leading case: State v. Holmes, 412 S.E.2d 660 (N.C. 1992).
State v. Holmes, 412 S.E.2d 660 (N.C. 1992). “The Freeman Court's holding regarding the privilege against disclosure of confidential marital communications is further illuminated by its reference to N.C.G.S. § 8-56, "the statute preserving a privilege in civil actions not to testify as to `confidential communications' with…”
Hicks v. Hicks, 167 S.E.2d 761 (N.C. 1969). “However, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 8-56 makes husband and wife both competent and compellable to testify for or against each other in all civil actions except for certain statutory prohibitions.”
Misenheimer v. Burris, 637 S.E.2d 173 (N.C. 2006). “2d 620, 624 (2006) (discussing, in an alienation of affections case, how "[c]ommencing the statute of limitations only after alienation is complete comports with North Carolina's public policy favoring the protection of marriage"); see also N.C.G.S. § 8-56 (2005) (providing that…”
Wright v. Wright, 188 S.E.2d 317 (N.C. 1972). “Plaintiff contends1 that this question must be answered in the negative, basing her contention primarily on G.S. 8-56 and G.S. 50-10. Defendant points out that Rule 33 provides that interrogatories to parties “may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule…”
State v. Freeman, 276 S.E.2d 450 (N.C. 1981). “*597 Whether a particular segment of testimony includes a “con *598 fidential communication” within the meaning of the rule we adopt in this case is to be determined by the guidelines set forth in our previous decisions interpreting the term under G.S. 8-56, the statute…”
Scott v. Kiker, 297 S.E.2d 142 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant’s first argument is that the trial court erred by allowing plaintiff to testify about his ex-wife’s adultery, in violation of G.S. 8-56. We do not agree. According to G.”
State v. Godbey, 792 S.E.2d 820 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016). “1, however, abrogates the marital communications privilege even further with regard to cases of child abuse: Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 8-56 and G.S. 8-57, the husband-wife privilege shall not be ground for excluding evidence regarding the abuse or neglect of a child…”
Hicks v. Hicks, 155 S.E.2d 799 (N.C. 1967). “” North Carolina recognized the common-law privilege before it was written in our statute.”
Biggs Ex Rel. Biggs v. Biggs Ex Rel. Weiters, 116 S.E.2d 178 (N.C. 1960). “Later the court apparently considered that the rule had been abrogated by statute (G.S. 8-56). State v. McDowell, 101 N.C. 734 , 7 S.”
Becker v. Becker, 138 S.E.2d 507 (N.C. 1964). “Among other things, it is provided in G.S. 8-56: “* ® * Nothing herein shall render any husband or wife competent or compellable to give any evidence for or against the other in any action or proceeding in consequence of adultery, or in any action or proceeding for divorce on…”
Freeman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 324 S.E.2d 307 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). “8-56 provides that in any civil action, except as herein specified, the husband or wife of any party in the action or of any person in whose behalf the action is brought, prosecuted, opposed or defended, is competent and compellable to be a witness on behalf of any party to such…”
Walker v. Lewis, 127 F.R.D. 466 (W.D.N.C. 1989). “On May 18, 1989, plaintiff claimed spousal privilege and objected to reopening discovery on the basis of allegations made by her estranged husband.”
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.