People v. Van Dorsten

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Van Dorsten

507 N.W.2d 831, 202 Mich. App. 293

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 1993

DocketDocket 162107

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 507 N.W.2d 831 (People v. Van Dorsten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Van Dorsten, 507 N.W.2d 831, 202 Mich. App. 293 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Connor, J.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2). The trial court sentenced him to prison for a term of forty to sixty years. Defendant appealed as of right. This Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided July 15, 1992 (Docket No. 125510). Our Supreme Court reversed this Court’s decision and remanded the case to this Court with instructions to remand it to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. People v Van Dorsten, 441 Mich 540; 494 NW2d 737 (1993). We did so, and we now affirm.

At issue is defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in allowing Terry Doyle to testify. Defendant had argued that Doyle was his wife and so could not testify against him without his consent. See MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162.

After the hearing on remand, the trial court found that defendant married Terry Doyle in Arizona in 1985 without having first obtained a valid divorce from his wife Karen, whom he had married in Michigan in 1963. We affirm these findings.

Defendant contends that even if he did not obtain a valid divorce, his bigamous marriage to Doyle still makes her his wife because under Ari *295 zona law the marriage is voidable, not void. We disagree.

The question before us is whether, at the time she testified, Doyle was defendant’s "wife” for the purposes of the statute at issue. The statute says that a "wife” cannot be examined as a witness for or against "her husband” without his consent. MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162.

We believe that the term "wife” as used in the statute must be construed in accordance with the purpose the Legislature intended to address. We do not believe our Legislature intended to extend spousal immunity to marriages repugnant to both the law of this state and the law of the place where the marriage was entered into. Regardless of whether the marriage is void under Arizona law or merely voidable, it was illegal. Accordingly, the trial court properly decided that defendant did not have the right to prevent Doyle from testifying by asserting spousal privilege.

We have reviewed defendant’s original claims of error, and find all to be without merit. Defendant had a right to a fair trial, not a perfect one, and that is what he has already received.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Connor, J.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2). The trial court sentenced him to prison for a term of forty to sixty years. Defendant appealed as of right. This Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided July 15, 1992 (Docket No. 125510). Our Supreme Court reversed this Court’s decision and remanded the case to this Court with instructions to remand it to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. People v Van Dorsten, 441 Mich 540; 494 NW2d 737 (1993). We did so, and we now affirm.

At issue is defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in allowing Terry Doyle to testify. Defendant had argued that Doyle was his wife and so could not testify against him without his consent. See MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162.

After the hearing on remand, the trial court found that defendant married Terry Doyle in Arizona in 1985 without having first obtained a valid divorce from his wife Karen, whom he had married in Michigan in 1963. We affirm these findings.

Defendant contends that even if he did not obtain a valid divorce, his bigamous marriage to Doyle still makes her his wife because under Ari *295 zona law the marriage is voidable, not void. We disagree.

The question before us is whether, at the time she testified, Doyle was defendant’s "wife” for the purposes of the statute at issue. The statute says that a "wife” cannot be examined as a witness for or against "her husband” without his consent. MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162.

We believe that the term "wife” as used in the statute must be construed in accordance with the purpose the Legislature intended to address. We do not believe our Legislature intended to extend spousal immunity to marriages repugnant to both the law of this state and the law of the place where the marriage was entered into. Regardless of whether the marriage is void under Arizona law or merely voidable, it was illegal. Accordingly, the trial court properly decided that defendant did not have the right to prevent Doyle from testifying by asserting spousal privilege.

We have reviewed defendant’s original claims of error, and find all to be without merit. Defendant had a right to a fair trial, not a perfect one, and that is what he has already received.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 N.W.2d 831, 202 Mich. App. 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-dorsten-michctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack