Special Action from the City of Phoenix Municipal Court The
Honorable Laura Lowery No. 100050574
Appeal
from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable
Michael D. Gordon, Judge No. LC2016-000472
Opinion
of the Court of Appeals, Division One 244 Ariz. 308 (App.
2018)
Amy B.
Offenberg (argued), Assistant Phoenix City Prosecutor,
Phoenix, Attorney for Phoenix City Prosecutor
Tracey
Westerhausen, Lawrence I. Kazan, Gregory M. Zamora (argued),
Debus, Kazan & Westerhausen, Ltd., Phoenix, Attorneys for
Claudette Craig
Bruce
Washburn, Scottsdale City Attorney, Ken Flint, Assistant City
Prosecutor, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of
Scottsdale
Mikel
Steinfeld (argued), Maricopa County Public Defender's
Office, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys
for Criminal Justice
JUSTICE GOULD authored the opinion of the Court, in which
CHIEF JUSTICE BALES and JUSTICES PELANDER, TIMMER, BOLICK,
and LOPEZ and JUDGE EPPICH [*] joined.
OPINION
GOULD
JUSTICE.
¶1
In this case, we address the crime exception to the
anti-marital fact privilege. A.R.S. § 13-4062(1). We
hold that when a defendant commits a crime against his or her
spouse and is charged for that crime, the crime exception to
the anti-marital fact privilege allows the witness-spouse to
testify regarding not only that charge, but also any charges
arising from the same unitary event.
I.
¶2
The City of Phoenix ("the City") alleges that H.C.,
the husband of Real Party in Interest Claudette Craig, called
the police to report that Craig had been drinking and was
attempting to leave their residence. H.C. tried to prevent
Craig from driving by parking one of their cars behind her
mini-van. Craig backed into the parked car, damaging both
vehicles, which were jointly-owned by H.C. and Craig. Craig
was charged with one count of criminal damage, a domestic
violence offense under A.R.S. §§ 13-1602 and
-3601(A), and three counts of driving under the influence
("DUI") under A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1)
("impaired to the slightest degree"), -1381(A)(2)
(blood "alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more"),
and -1382(A)(1) ("extreme influence of intoxicating
liquor").
¶3
Before trial, Craig moved to preclude H.C. from testifying
about the DUI charges and to sever those charges from the
criminal damage charge. Both motions were based on
Craig's invocation of the anti-marital fact privilege.
The municipal court granted Craig's motions.
¶4
The City petitioned the superior court for special action
relief, arguing that H.C. could testify about the DUI charges
based on the crime exception to the anti-marital fact
privilege. See ยง 13-4062(1). The superior court
accepted review but denied relief. The court of appeals
affirmed, holding that severance was proper because the
anti-marital fact privilege precluded H.C. from ...