v.
TUITUAOLO
OLENE TOGIAILUA, Defendant.
High Court of
Trial Division
CR No. 10-99
[1] Unless provided by statute or
constitutional provision, privileges in
[2]
The spousal immunity privilege protects one spouse from testifying against the
other concerning conduct or other facts of which he or she has personal
knowledge.
[3]
The spousal communications privilege shields private communications between husband and wife.
[4] The
spousal immunity privilege does not apply in cases where a crime has been
committed by one spouse against another spouse or against a child of the
family.
[5]
A defendant’s right to a speedy trial in a criminal prosecution is protected by
Article I Section 6 of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa.
[6]
Accused’s right to a speedy trial had not been abridged where jury trial was
set for a time nearly seven (7) months post-arraignment, where defendant did
not object to trial date at original trial setting, where defendant was charged
with a homicide-related offense requiring substantial preparation and where
criminal caseload of court was significant.
Before
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Frederick J. O’Brien, Assistant Attorney
General
For Defendant, Tautai A. F.
Faalevao, Public Defender [3ASR3d79]
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS
STATEMENTS
BY DEFENDANT’S WIFE, TO PROHIBIT HER
TESTIMONY,
AND TO SCHEDULE EARLIER JURY TRIAL
This matter
involves the alleged murder of a young woman by her father, defendant Tuituaolo
Olene Togiailua (“Togiailua”). The chief eyewitness for the prosecution is
Tuituaolo’s wife, who has asserted that she does not wish to testify,
purporting to invoke the privilege of spousal immunity. A formal motion to suppress her statements
and to prevent her from testifying was filed on
Discussion
A. Spousal Immunity Privilege
[1] The specific issue of the existence and application of the spousal
immunity privilege is one of first impression in this jurisdiction. Privileges
generally, however, are governed by TCRE 501:
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or of American Samoa or
provided by an Act of the Fono, the privileges of a witness, person, government
or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of common
law.
For guidance in our interpretation, we look to the development of the
spousal privilege as it has evolved in the federal and various state courts.
[2-3]
Originally, the notion of spousal immunity grew out of the pre-twentieth
century concept that husband and wife were a single entity in the eyes of the
law, and that each was therefore incompetent to sue or appear as a witness
against the other. GLORIA M. SODARO & PAUL A.J. WILSON, TESTIMONIAL
PRIVILEGES § 5.02 (Scott N. Stone & Robert K. Taylor eds., 2d ed. 1995).
Although the laws regarding spousal relations—and particularly regarding
women’s rights within the marriage—have changed dramatically since the late
nineteenth century, the privilege of spousal immunity has survived under the
rationale that it helps to promote harmony within the marriage and family. Hawkins
v. United States, 358
[4]
Nevertheless, the recent trend has been to increasingly limit the reaches of
spousal immunity, largely in recognition of the fact that certain acts within a
family by their very nature tend to undermine the marital and family harmony
which the privilege seeks to protect.
In this
particular case, the alleged crime at issue is no less than the murder of a
child by one of her parents. In balancing the competing goals of family harmony
and the need for a complete and thorough fact-finding, the interests of justice
require that the scales be tipped in favor of the latter. Spousal immunity does not apply, and
Togiailua’s wife may properly be compelled to testify.
B. Speedy Trial
[5-6]
Togiailua also requests, on the ground of his right to a speedy trial, that his
jury trial now scheduled on
Order
Togiailua’s
motion to suppress statements by his wife and to prohibit her testimony for the
prosecution against her husband, on the ground of the privilege of spousal
immunity, is denied. His motion for an
earlier trial date, on the ground of his right to a speedy trial, is also
denied.
It is so
Ordered.
**********
[1] A separate and distinct privilege, which protects the
confidentiality of spousal communications, was also developed at common law.
Unlike spousal immunity, which can prevent testimony regarding conduct or other
facts, this more limited privilege shields only private communications between
husband and wife, for the specific purpose of encouraging openness and honesty
within a marriage.