Exceptions to spousal privilege advance in Iowa Legislature

DES MOINES — A proposal requiring Iowans to testify against a spouse in cases involving threats by one against the other or to a third party won approval Wednesday from the Iowa House Judiciary Committee.

Marital privilege allows communication that occurs between spouses to remain confidential and free from public exposure, and protects spouses from being required to testify against one another in a civil or criminal case.

House Study Bill 528 would codify two exceptions found in current law, Rep. Brian Lohse, R-Bondurant, said. A person could be compelled to testify against a spouse about threats made against him or her, or to a third party, as well as about communications disclosed to a third party. The bill would add a third exception, compelling testimony in cases where one spouse is charged with criminal acts against the other, such as domestic abuse, he said.

The third exception drew on a case where a woman threatened to kill — with a detailed explanation — her husband’s girlfriend. Those communications, which were needed to prove intent, were not permitted at trial because of spousal privilege, Lohse said.

Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, questioned whether that third exception is needed because the defendant was convicted, “and convicted with intent.”

“She was a very sloppy murderer, I would say,” Wessel-Kroeschell added.

The bill, the same as Senate Study Bill 3013, was approved 20-0. It also changed the terms “husband” and “wife” to “spouse.”

The committee also approved HSB 592 to allow, upon a motion from any party, an arraignment, pretrial conference, scheduling conference or any other non-contested criminal proceeding to be conducted by videoconference or telephone. Also, a hearing in a criminal case could be conducted by videoconference or telephone if it does not prejudice a substantial right of a party.

The change is a lesson learned from the coronavirus pandemic, Wessel-Kroeschell said, and can save time and money.

Finally, the Judiciary Committee voted 18-3 to send House File 2043 to the full House. It would change the mandatory retirement age for judicial magistrates from 72 to 78, which is the same for judges on senior status.

Some committee members questioned why there was any mandatory retirement age. Others thought the rule should apply to all judges, including the state Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court.

Comments: (319) 398-8375; james.lynch@thegazette.com