(TRENTON) – Legislation Assembly Democrats John McKeon, Joe Lagana and L. Grace Spencer sponsored to establish a crime-fraud exception to marital and civil union partnership privileges has been signed into law.
The law (A-3636) stems from the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Terry, which proposed an amendment to the New Jersey Rules of Evidence to include a crime-fraud exception to the communications privilege that exists between couples who are married or in a civil union.
“This change strikes an appropriate balance between marital and civil union privacy and the public’s interest in attaining justice,” said McKeon (D-Essex/Morris). “It’s a common sense change that continues to respect marital privileges while also keeping the need for justice in mind.”
Formerly, state law provided that no person shall disclose any communication made in confidence between a person and his or her spouse or civil union partner unless both consent to the disclosure, or unless the communication is relevant to an issue in an action between them, or in a criminal action or proceeding in which either spouse or partner consents to the disclosure, or in a criminal action or proceeding for which a testimonial privilege does not apply.
The sponsors noted that amending the statute to conform to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s proposal aids in preventing the marital and partnership privilege from being used for the unintended consequence of immunizing the criminal activity of certain spouses and partners who invoke the privilege, while preserving the general privilege and its intended purpose of protecting and encouraging free and uninhibited communication and confidence between spouses and civil union partners.
“The marital and civil union partnership communications privilege arises from the strong public policy in this state of encouraging free and uninhibited communication between spouses and civil union partners, and, consequently, of protecting the sanctity of marriages and civil unions,” said Lagana (D-Bergen/Passaic). “However, it also unintentionally served to immunize conversations between spouses and partners about their ongoing and future joint criminal behavior.”
“Amending the statute to conform to the Supreme Court’s proposal will help prevent the marital and partnership privilege from being used for the unintended consequence of immunizing the criminal activity of spouses and partners who invoke the privilege,” said Spencer (D-Essex). “Meanwhile, we preserve the general privilege and its intended purpose of protecting and encouraging free and uninhibited communication and confidence between spouses and civil union partners.”
