# Commonwealth v. Spetzer

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 31, 2002 · 572 Pa. 17

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748342

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Jon Anthony SPETZER, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 31, 2002
- **Citations:** 572 Pa. 17; 813 A.2d 707; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 3116
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748342

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the spousal confidential communication privilege of section 5914 is inapplicable in a criminal proceeding because the declarant spouse could have no reasonable expectation of marital confidentiality in statements made regarding child abuse or the cause of child ab…
- stating, “there are instances where the circumstances surrounding marital communications indicate that the communications are intended to create or further disharmony in the marital relationship; in those instances, the privilege yields.”
- holding that the marital privilege yields when "the cireum-stances surrounding marital communications indicate that the communications are intended to create or further disharmony in the marital relationship"
- holding that the marital privilege yields when "the circumstances surrounding marital communications indicate that the communications are intended to create or further disharmony in the marital relationship"

## Opinion text

Justice NIGRO,
Concurring.
I agree with the majority that Mrs. Spetzer’s testimony regarding conversations she had with Appellee was admissible. *45 I disagree, however, with the majority’s rationale that Appellee’s communications were not confidential under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5914 because the communications did not promote marital harmony. See Maj. Op. at 721-22 (citing Seitz v. Seitz, 170 Pa. 71 , 32 A. 578 (1895)). Rather, I would find that the challenged communications were admissible under section 6381(c) of the Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”), which, as the Commonwealth argues, modifies the spousal privilege set forth in section 5914. Specifically, section 6381(c) states:
Privileged communications.—Except for privileged communications between a lawyer and a client and between a minister and a penitent, a privilege of confidential communication between husband and wife or between any professional person, including, but not limited to, physicians, psychologists, counselors, employees of hospitals, clinics, daycare centers and schools and their patients or clients, shall not constitute grounds for excluding evidence at any proceeding regarding child abuse or the cause of child abuse.
23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(c) (emphasis added). In enacting this provision, I believe that the legislature made a public policy decision to override section 5914’s spousal privilege in proceedings, such as this one, which involve allegations of child abuse. Therefore, in my view, this Court need not go any further than section 6381(c) to find that the challenged statements in the instant case were admissible.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748342. Public record. Not legal advice.