Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Jaques

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 1977No. 11903Published

1ConcurrenceZastrow, Justice

(concurring specialty)-

I concur in the opinion of Justice Morgan. The South Dakota statutes preceding SDCL 19-2-1 have been interpreted as making a spouse incompetent as a witness unless the other spouse consents to such testimony. State v. Burt, 1903, 17 S.D. 7, 94 N.W. 409; State v. Damm, 1933, 62 S.D. 123, 252 N.W. 7; State v. Goff, 1936, 64 S.D. 80, 264 N.W. 665. See also, United States v. Crow Dog, 1882, 3 Dak. 106, 14 N.W. 437.

It is surprising that in spite of the criticism of spousal incompetency by Wigmore & McCormick (and Bentham long before them) that it survives and was reaffirmed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hawkins v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Wolfle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. State v. DammSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
  4. State v. BurtSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
  5. State v. GoffSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API