[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
116 views2 pages

Writing Program Evidence Question 1

Victor's statement in the hospital record identifying Dan as his stabber is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. However, the trial court erred in not allowing Victor's wife to invoke spousal privilege to avoid testifying. While spousal immunity did not apply since Victor died, the confidential communication privilege should have prevented her from testifying about what Victor told her privately in the hospital. The trial court also erred in sustaining the prosecutor's hearsay objection to the wife's testimony without letting her respond, as her statement could have fallen under an exception.

Uploaded by

Knuj Boga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
116 views2 pages

Writing Program Evidence Question 1

Victor's statement in the hospital record identifying Dan as his stabber is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. However, the trial court erred in not allowing Victor's wife to invoke spousal privilege to avoid testifying. While spousal immunity did not apply since Victor died, the confidential communication privilege should have prevented her from testifying about what Victor told her privately in the hospital. The trial court also erred in sustaining the prosecutor's hearsay objection to the wife's testimony without letting her respond, as her statement could have fallen under an exception.

Uploaded by

Knuj Boga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Writing Program Evidence Question 1

1. Hospital Record Containing Victor’s Statement – Trial court did not err
The issue is whether Victor’s statement in the hospital record is admissible: it is admissible
under two separate hearsay exceptions. First, this statement is hearsay because it was an out-
of-court statement (at the hospital) offered for the truth of what Victor said (“I was stabbed
with a big knife. Dan did it”).
The hospital has a record of Victor’s statement based on the hospital’s standard procedure, and
falls under the hearsay exception of statements that are made for purposes of medical diagnosis
or treatment. Therefore, the trial court correctly admitted this evidence.
2. Wife’s claim of privilege – Trial court erred
There are two types of marital privileges. Spousal immunity can be claimed during a valid
marriage and prohibits a spouse from being compelled to testify against the other spouse in
criminal trials. Confidential marital communication can be claimed irrespective of a marriage’s
validity at trial, and allow both spouses to not disclose and prohibit the other from disclosing
confidential communications.
Spousal Immunity
Victor died, so spousal immunity is not available. His death rendered his wife a widow, and not a
spouse. Wife does not have a privilege and can be compelled to testify.
Confidential marital communication
The second marital privilege does not apply in part because the communication Victor’s wife
claims is partly not confidential. The statement was made when Victor and she were alone
together in the hospital, and that was a communication made in reliance of the intimacy of their
marriage and had privilege. However, when Victor told her friend about this conversation,
despite not disclosing who Victor had identified as the assailant, this broke the confidential
nature.
The prosecutor may not ask specifically the facts that she kept confidential (the identity of his
assailant), but he may ask about the surrounding conversation she already broke confidentiality
with the friend.
3. Prosecutor’s hearsay objection to Wife’s testimony – Trial court erred
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of what the declarant said. The
prosecutor raised an objection to the defense counsel’s questions, before the Wife could
respond. It is very likely that whatever the Wife would say could fall under hearsay but there
could be exceptions that could apply. It is uncertain with the facts because circumstances could
categorize them as admissible, even if they were hearsay.

You might also like