in Canada, the spousal privilege does not survive the end of the marriage - if they're "irrevocably" separated, she can testify. Canada also has exceptions to the privilege though, and child sexual abuse is one of them. (as is spousal abuse itself, duh)

edit to add: hmmm, I may be wrong about the first part up there - they may have had to be separated at the time of the things she's testifying about, rather than the time of the trial. As others have pointed out, it relates to communications during the marriage.

But I know nothing about american/California criminal law, so that's pretty much interesting but irrelevant information.

Calfornia Code indicates that the privilege belongs to the defendant spounse.

West's Ann.Cal.Evid.Code § 980

Division 8. Privileges (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 4. Particular Privileges

Article 5. Privilege for Confidential Marital Communications (Refs & Annos)

§ 980. Confidential marital communication privilege

Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, a spouse (or his guardian or conservator when he has a guardian or conservator), whether or not a party, has a privilege during the marital relationship and afterwards to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a communication if he claims the privilege and the communication was made in confidence between him and the other spouse while they were husband and wife.

Section 912 deals with certain waivers, such as the failure to assert the privilege, the holder voluntarily disclosing the contents of the communication, etc. This was interesting:

(b) Where two or more persons are joint holders of a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege), 994 (physician-patient privilege), 1014 (psychotherapist-patient privilege), 1035.8 (sexual assault counselor-victim privilege), or 1037.5 (domestic violence counselor- victim privilege), a waiver of the right of a particular joint holder of the privilege to claim the privilege does not affect the right of another joint holder to claim the privilege. In the case of the privilege provided by Section 980 (privilege for confidential marital communications), a waiver of the right of one spouse to claim the privilege does not affect the right of the other spouse to claim the privilege.

I think I don't rightly understand spousal privilege, then. I had thought it would mean I wouldn't have to testify against my spouse, but I could if I wanted to.

If that's not how it works, I don't like it. Well, I'm iffy on its point anyway.

But Spousal Privilege only applies to "communication"? So if, say, a spouse observed her husband doing something, it wouldn't apply?

So if one spouse saw the other molesting their kid, or the molester told the first spouse s/he had done so, the first spouse couldn't testify about it? Or am I reading the legalese wrong?

Right. Spousal privilege applies to communications -- one spouse can be compelled to testify as to what she/he saw the other spouse do.

So if one spouse saw the other molesting their kid, or the molester told the first spouse s/he had done so, the first spouse couldn't testify about it? Or am I reading the legalese wrong?

The spouse can testify to what she sees, but not to what she was told by her husband.

and to prevent another from disclosing

What's the history behind that? Why should I be able to force my husband to keep my crimes quiet?

The Anaheim, formerly California, formerly LA Angels are now the LA Angels of Anaheim.

Ooookay.... [link]

Timlies, and a belated HAPPY NEW YEAR to all buffistas. I meant to keep up over the weekend, but I...didn't. Thanks for the congrats on the apartment. I'm still really freaked about moving. Did I mention I hate moving? Well I do. I'm hoping it will be a little different this time since it's under my own speed, but I'm having a hard time thinking about anything else right now.

Oh, and since I saw her here, although I posted this before somewhere in here, THANK YOU msbelle, for the nummy Xmas treats!!!!

Why should I be able to force my husband to keep my crimes quiet?

The idea is that marriage is sacred. You tell your spouse stuff you'd never tell another living person, and that's the way it should be.

Used to be worse. Used to be that husband and wife were one person in law, and that person was the husband.

Which meant, among other things, that a woman arrested for, say, forgery could calmly say "Okay, fine, prosecute my husband."