Osborne v. Com.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1974 |
| Citation | 214 Va. 691,204 S.E.2d 289 |
| Parties | Dale Clinton OSBORNE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Paul H. Miller, III, Goochland, for plaintiff in error.
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and POFF, JJ.
The defendant, Dale Clinton Osborne, was indicted, tried before a jury, and convicted of statutory rape, Code § 18.1--44, of his fifteen-year-old stepdaughter. The trial court sentenced him to serve a term of 20 years in the state penitentiary, the penalty fixed by the jury.
We granted a writ of error to review the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of privileged communications between him and his wife contrary to the provisions of Code § 8--289.
The evidence of the prosecutrix established that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with her on at least six occasions between September, 1972, and January, 1973, when she 'ran away' from the defendant's home and went to the home of her natural father.
Defendant's wife, called as a Commonwealth's witness, testified that she became suspicious that the defendant was violating her daughter. She questioned the girl in October, 1972, in an effort to determine whether those suspicions were well founded. She first learned of defendant's illegal conduct in a conversation with her daughter on the second Sunday in October, 1972, but did not report this information to the police until January, 1973, after the girl had 'run away.' She further testified that she did not seek assistance from the police until then because she was afraid of the defendant. When asked why she was afraid of him, Mrs. Osborne was permitted, over objection, to testify that the defendant had beaten her and her daughter on several occasions. She stated that she was beaten, on one occasion, 'to the point of unconsciousness.'
The defendant says that this testimony should have been excluded under Code § 8--289 which provides, in pertinent part: 'Neither husband nor wife shall, without the consent of the other, be examined in any case as to any communication privately made by one to the other while married . . ..'
While we have adopted the liberal view that privileged communications between husband and wife include all information or knowledge privately imparted and made known by one spouse to the other by virtue of and in consequence of the marital relation through conduct, acts, signs and spoken or written words, Menefee v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 900, 912, 55 S.E.2d 9, 15 (1949), we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hannuksela
...v. Freeman, 302 N.C. 591, 598, 276 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1981); Arnold v. State, 353 So.2d 524, 526 (Ala.1977); Osbourne v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 691, 692, 204 S.E.2d 289, 290 (1974).11 The federal courts apply a similar rule. See, e.g., United States v. Estes, 793 F.2d 465, 467 (2d Cir.1986) (c......
-
State v. Robinson
...ruled that all of Mrs. Menefee's testimony should have been excluded at trial and reversed the conviction. See Osbourne v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 691, 204 S.E.2d 289 (1974). A number of jurisdictions 4 have adhered to the same view, holding that in order to give effect to the public policy b......
-
Stewart v. Com.
...separate and distinct rule of evidence governing confidential communications between husband and wife. See also Osborne v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 691, 204 S.E.2d 289 (1974). We hold that the divorce decree of June 6, 1977, terminated Stewart's privilege to prevent Mrs. Stewart from testifyin......
-
Edwards v. Com., 1942-93-1
...55 S.E.2d at 15, a spouse's conduct which does not convey information to the other spouse is not privileged. Osborne v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 691, 692, 204 S.E.2d 289, 290 (1974) (wife's testimony that husband had beaten her and daughter not privileged). The former wife's discovery of the c......