In a State That Did Not Recognize the Concept of Common

Multiple Choice

In a state that did not recognize the concept of common law marriage, a man and woman had lived together for 10 years and they had three children together. While at work one day, the man engaged in an altercation with a co-worker that resulted in a criminal charge of assault. The prosecution became aware that the man had discussed the offense and his criminal difficulties with the woman with whom he lived. The prosecution planned to call the woman to testify against the man with respect to what he told her about the alleged crime. Under these circumstances:

A) the woman cannot be compelled to testify because she may assert a marital confidential communication privilege. Their relationship, and the fact that they had children together, appears to be the type of relationship that the marital confidential communication privilege should recognize and support.
B) the woman may be required to testify against the male defendant even though the conversation between the two of them was intended to remain confidential.
C) the woman cannot be compelled to testify against her live-in companion because they have a relationship that appears to be similar to a marriage, and spouses do not have to testify against each other, as a general rule.
D) the woman should be able to successfully assert either marital privilege to avoid having to testify against her live-in boyfriend.