CRIMINAL LAW
Emma Giusto
In Williams v. State, 480 P.3d 95 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that joint involvement by both spouses in the criminal or fraudulent activity is not required for the crime-fraud exception to confidential marriage communications to apply. (Id. at 97). Williams and his girlfriend went to the decedent’s apartment to steal valuables and in the process, he wielded a gun. (Id.). In the ensuing struggle for control of the gun it fired, killing the decedent. (Id.). Shortly after, Williams called his estranged wife to ask her to buy him a plane ticket out of Alaska, recanting that he had shot someone. (Id. at 97–98). Without Williams’ knowledge, his wife allowed her mother to record the conversation and provided it to the police. (Id. at 98). On appeal, Williams argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his indictment based on his claim that his conversation with his wife was protected by the confidential marriage communications privilege. (Id.). He based this argument in part on federal case law that recognized the joint participation exception, requiring both spouses to be involved in the crime. (Id. at 99). The court of appeals remanded the case for other issues, but affirmed the trial court on this point, reasoning that the plain language of Alaska Evidence Rule 505(b), which sets out the marriage communications privilege, does not require joint participation. (Id. at 99, 104). The court further reasoned that the federal joint participation exception is different from the crime-fraud exception, and that the latter only requires one spouse to be aware that the communication is related to a criminal or fraudulent matter. (Id. at 99–100). Upholding the trial court on this matter, the court of appeals held that joint involvement by both spouses in the criminal or fraudulent activity is not required for the crime-fraud exception to confidential marriage communications to apply. (Id. at 97).
