Hawkins v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1958 · Evidence

Evidencespousal testimonymarital privilegehusband-wife incompetency ruleadverse spousal testimonyfamily harmonyFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 26reason and experience

Facts

Petitioner was prosecuted for transporting a girl from Arkansas to Oklahoma for immoral purposes in violation of the Mann Act. At trial, interstate transportation was conceded, and the central factual dispute was whether petitioner's dominant purpose was to facilitate the girl's prostitution in Tulsa. Over petitioner's objection, the Government called his wife, who testified that she was petitioner's wife and that she was a prostitute at the time of the trip, and on redirect that she had been a prostitute before marrying him. The prosecutrix testified that petitioner took her to Tulsa so she could work as a prostitute, while petitioner claimed the ride was merely incidental to his own business trip to Oklahoma City.

Issue

In a federal criminal prosecution, may the Government call a defendant's spouse to give adverse testimony against the defendant over the defendant's objection if the spouse does not object to testifying? If admitting that testimony was error, was the error harmless on this record?

Rule

In federal criminal cases, the common-law rule as interpreted in light of reason and experience bars one spouse from testifying adversely against the other unless both spouses consent; the Court declined to modify the rule to permit voluntary adverse spousal testimony over the defendant spouse's objection. Erroneous admission of such testimony requires reversal when the Court cannot say the testimony did not have substantial influence on the jury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal mail-fraud prosecution in Denver, prosecutors call Lena Ortiz to testify that her husband, Victor Ortiz, directed her to help conceal false invoices. Lena tells the judge she wants to testify, but Victor objects before she takes the stand.

Should the federal trial court allow Lena's adverse testimony over Victor's objection?

Explanation. The majority rule is that in federal criminal cases the testimony of one spouse against the other is barred unless both spouses consent. The Court expressly rejected the proposed distinction between compelled and voluntary adverse testimony. This question concerns adverse spousal testimony, not merely confidential communications.