 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gianakos5/23/2002
f the substantive law." State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652, 658 (Minn. 2001). The judicial branch "regulates the method by which the guilt or innocence of one who is accused of violating a criminal statute is determined." Id.
As part of the judicial power, this court has the primary responsibility for the regulation of evidentiary matters. Id.; State v. Olson, 482 N.W.2d 212, 215 (Minn. 1992). As a matter of comity, though, the court may enforce statutory rules of evidence. State v. Lanam, 459 N.W.2d 656, 658 (Minn. 1990); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180, 184 (Minn. 1983). That the court enforces a statute that governs a matter within its authority does not, however, constitute the surrender of its authority to the legislature:
It is true that this court has acquiesced in legislative acts prescribing administrative procedures for admission and discipline of attorneys as long as such acts did not usurp the right of the court to make the final decision. * * *.
* * * he court may wish to adopt some of the provisions by rule of the court. However, in so doing, we do not concede that their enactment was a permissible legislative prerogative. Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 424-25, 210 N.W.2d 275, 279-80 (1973) (emphasis added) (holding statute unconstitutional as legislative assumption of judiciary's power to regulate the practice of law).
Notwithstanding legislative attempts to limit the court's power to regulate evidentiary issues, the court's inherent authority includes the power to establish rules of evidence. Willis, 332 N.W.2d at 184. I agree, therefore, with the majority that "this court retains inherent power to adopt standards by judicial opinion relating to the admissibility of evidence in the interest of justice."
The majority correctly notes that two marital privileges exist in Minnesota: (1) the privilege against adverse spousal testimony; and (2) the marital communications privilege. Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(a) (2000); see State v. Leecy, 294 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Minn. 1980) (stating that section 595.02 has not been superseded by court rule). Marital confidences are protected by the communications privilege. Notwithstanding the majority's discussion of the communications privilege, that privilege is not at issue in this appeal. The issue before the court, and therefore the issue addressed by this dissent, involves the privilege against adverse spousal testimony when spouses jointly commit a crime.
The majority's exaltation of the statutory nature of Minnesota's marital privileges is peculiar in light of its recognition that the statute codifies the common law. The codification of the privilege against adverse spousal testimony does not proscribe the court from interpreting it:
Enactment of the rules governing human affairs into positive legislation reduces the statement of the law to more concise form than common or unwritten law. The advantages of brevity and conciseness are achieved, however, by sacrificing the ability to make specific provision for the multitudinous situations which may arise. In common-law jurisdictions this shortcoming has been overcome by judicial construction which modifies and synchronizes statute law with common-law rules and maxims. 2B Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 50:02 (6th ed. 2000) (footnote omitted).
Minnesota Statutes § 595.02, subd. 1(a), is silent as to whether the privilege against adverse spousal testimony extends to spouses who commit crimes together. The majority's response, to wait for the legislature to resolve an issue that lies within the court's inherent authority to decide, ignores that we have not blindly followed the statutory l
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Minnesota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|