Which statement is a valid exception to the spousal testimony prohibition?

Which statement is a valid exception to the spousal testimony prohibition?

• A. Civil cases by one spouse against the other, or in criminal cases for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
• B. In all civil cases with consent.
• C. Only in cases involving adultery.
• D. In any case.

Answer: (A)

The concept being tested is the spousal testimony prohibition and its recognized exceptions. Typically a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in a criminal case, reflecting a policy to protect the integrity of marriage and family. However, there are two valid exceptions. First, in civil actions where one spouse sues the other, the prohibition does not apply, so the spouse may testify as needed in the civil dispute. Second, in criminal cases where the crime is committed by one spouse against the other, or against the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants, the privilege does not bar testimony, and the spouse may testify about those offenses. This combination of scenarios precisely captures the allowed exceptions. The other options aren’t correct because they either overstate or narrow the scope of the exceptions. Consent in civil cases is not the standard basis for allowing testimony; adultery is not the sole or exclusive trigger of the exception, and there isn’t a blanket rule that spousal testimony is permissible in any case.

The concept being tested is the spousal testimony prohibition and its recognized exceptions. Typically a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in a criminal case, reflecting a policy to protect the integrity of marriage and family. However, there are two valid exceptions. First, in civil actions where one spouse sues the other, the prohibition does not apply, so the spouse may testify as needed in the civil dispute. Second, in criminal cases where the crime is committed by one spouse against the other, or against the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants, the privilege does not bar testimony, and the spouse may testify about those offenses. This combination of scenarios precisely captures the allowed exceptions.

The other options aren’t correct because they either overstate or narrow the scope of the exceptions. Consent in civil cases is not the standard basis for allowing testimony; adultery is not the sole or exclusive trigger of the exception, and there isn’t a blanket rule that spousal testimony is permissible in any case.