THE STATE COURT OF YAP
 IN THE TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as State of Yap v. Langmed, (1995)

[page 1]

THE STATE OF YAP
Plaintiff,
 
vs.

LEO LANGMED,
Defendant.

Criminal Case No. 1994-270

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO PRECLUDE
TESTIMONY OF MARTHA
CHILIF ON THE BASIS OF
MARITAL PRIVILEGE
     Defendant moved, by oral motion during trial, to preclude the testimony of Martha Chilif on the basis that any testimony that she might give would be based on information that she learned during her marriage to the Defendant, and that as a result, that testimony is subject to the marital privilege.

      The court notes that the Yap State Constitution, article 2, section 6, provides that "[n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against . . . a member of his family as prescribed by law." Yap Rule of Evidence 501 provides that

the privilege of a witness . . . shall be governed by the principles of the common law a they may be interpreted by the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Yap State court in the light of reason and experience.

The court further notes that the public policy which supports the existence of the marital communication privilege is to "aid in the preservation of the marriage status . . 81 Am Jur 2d, Witnesses, Sec. 300.

     Based on the testimony presented thus far, the court makes the finding that a traditional Yapese marriage existed at the time that the communications upon which the anticipated testimony will be based were made, but that the marriage no longer existed as of the time of trial.  Hence, in the view of the court, since there is no longer a marital relationship extant between the parties, the public policy which supports the martial privilege would not be served by precluding the testimony of Martha Chilif. Reason and experience dictate that if the very reason for

[page 2]

the privilege no longer exists, then the privilege should not operate to preclude the testimony.

Moreover, the court notes that numerous courts have held that, either at the common law or under a statutory provision reciting merely that neither spouse is competent to testify against the other, a divorced spouse may testify in a criminal prosecution directed against the other.

ALR 2d 579, section 3. That annotation discusses cases where the communication was received by the testifying spouse during marriage, but where the parties were divorced at time of trial. In those cases the testimony was admitted. This line of authority provides an additional reason why the court finds that the testimony of Martha Chilif should be admitted.

     The court also notes the States' position that Martha Chilif should be allowed to testify, because the alleged crime as to which she will testify was against her person. "[I]n a case involving the prosecution for a crime committed against a spouse by a spouse, the marital communication privilege is inapplicable." 81 Am Jur 2d, section 299. This rule provides yet another basis for allowing the testimony of Martha Chilif; although the court herewith makes it clear that because the marriage between the parties no longer exists, all relevant evidence, provided there is not some sustainable objection to it on a basis other than marital privilege, will be admitted.

     In light of the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Defendant's motion to preclude the testimony of Martha Chilif on the basis of marital privilege.

DONE THIS 27th day of June 1995

                                /s/
             Judge Constantine Yinug
 
Filed   June 27, 1995
                                                                     
} tjEwY$π~u3ɀSL Q @:!"h@'A@uʀ3 _^]$<iU_VW~@@t\GDt@tj^@Cjv8L= @t-wF(u9~8t"WT&|tWF  +_^+39E VuW@Pu!|\  DyX3@ɉ M]"S] S 9EB U@2 @t@3;PS<ȅ}!@;t/@F,t/7tjjjjS)Mjh;?}3Gt4E" uSS  MGCPth`hAA(AO h`'B&c W! _ _ 3F([%1F(3^©& eS'E(EB(@]t@WS{+`;u@mC4tA;H b:L`!t(Ht!HtHtHHt HH@3j jjjX3WWWPjV-}# s.Ba-&y`BF@F8 &PCPɈgNAEH4;=@Y u?AR uo]CDuKXt GWh" aa0hK`SQDt\@jC@CjW8#u65J4j + XBWAQ n@閠;ËX4 Dx ۓ$@ A !h~@t' u#t?C#jPWtE]@"" d-d@t @2Cm*A%G@ CtGPMA@@@hP E;SAh@L6ep " E"}uR@=#u#4t$p8Wv@}>=tPou1j5 uwa>e` x(t }t `j dp0} P^(t}WAa4t G4PE@4ARt{TEjuPRͣ (!AS@ uRt|J4;}=80@2u yS!Gf-0pG@aHP zP)E@D`;t@XE `.!}GP39_XtIMA=Bt= u5A&(uA4D up uAOXSO Xj襐]Ea^V@wGtSHtGHurq_0 iA` P:Q@u逛l=!:@.%F@?$^ @t%SNbH0R6)QtE0/Pj >^7vVWwjNd褰<2IO7TCp$lА.U0 4&$P1jEt"B#E1:""7#"EpuUf*$$rJd9#$#``t&#@p# G 3fĿ3+!2A袃jxYNhI;~ j"K D F(.m qURϐD0"ͽGD@OXPS!@j$PF(@t}t IU39Euw9E|rJ49M}g ^(PuW jj$9}MW~t) q @2 u9~@tWi9~8 0(/eRDttujWCh(EF(tb}tuVjjEP7l E;| ;}~E;}+Nj+}G|