In St Clair V

Multiple Choice

In St. Clair v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, the defendant contended that several statements in which defendant Mr. St. Clair admitted committing crimes to his spouse were done in confidence and in reliance upon the marital relationship and that his spouse should not have testified against him concerning those statements. In one telephone conversation between the defendant and his spouse, where no one overheard their conversation, the defendant mentioned some activities that he had performed, which would help convict him of some of the charged crimes if revealed in a court of law. Under the marital confidential communication privilege, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the trial court:

A) should have recognized that under the circumstances the marital confidential communication privilege prevented the trial court from allowing Mrs. St. Clair to testify against defendant Mr. St. Clair where the defendant made an objection to his wife's testimony.
B) should have allowed defendant Mr. St. Clair to keep Mrs. St. Clair from testifying against him because under the modern rules both spouses are considered to be holders of the marital testimonial privilege, and either one may assert the privilege to prevent adverse spousal testimony.
C) properly allowed the wife of the defendant to testify against him because, under the modern interpretations of the marital testimonial privilege, if one spouse desires to testify against the other, there is little substance left in the marriage to protect and the testimony should be permitted.
D) properly allowed the spouse to testify against her husband, defendant Mr. St. Clair, because the phone conversation concerned some criminal activities that had been performed by the defendant prior to talking with his spouse on the telephone.