Blog

Answer & Explanation:Help Edit Case Brief on
State
of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann 2009 UT 58
State
of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann 2009 UT 58
Procedural History
The
State of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann was a case upon which the Utah Supreme
Court came to the unanimous decision and affirmed the district court denied the
motion and allowed the admission of Mrs. Timmermann statement giving voluntary
to law enforcement and SANE nurse. The admission of the statement did not
violate spouse marital privilege because it does not cover voluntary statement
giving to law enforcement outside of the court preceding. Mr. Timmerman argue that under the sixth
amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 12 of the
Utah Constitution prevents the used of out of court voluntary statement (2015).
Mr. Timmerman was charged with attempted rape, forcible sexual
abuse, and assault. At the preliminary hearing, the victim, Mrs. Timmerman,
invoked her spousal privilege not to testify against her husband (2015). The
State then introduced into evidence Mrs. Timmerman’s previous statements to the
police and to a sexual assault nurse. With those statements, the magistrate
bound Mr. Timmerman over for trial (2015).
Facts
During the early morning of June 30,
2007, the Timmeran’s neighbor heard a woman screaming “stop it!” and “help me!”
Around 7:00 am, the neighbor notified the police. Officer Mclelland interviews
Mrs. Timmeran he notcies she had bruises the 
ask Mrs

. Timmerann to supply a witness statement. In her statement, Mrs. Timmeran wrote that Mr.
Timmeran repeatedly to hit her and force her to have intercourse. Another police officer asked her to submit to
a sexual assault examination with a SANE nurse. At the preliminary hearing,
Mrs. Timmeran invoked her spousal privilege not to testify against her husband.
The State then introduced into evidence Mrs. Timmeran’s previous statements to
law enforcement and to a sexual assault nurse. Mr. Timmeran subsequently filed
a motion to quash the bindover. The district court denied the motion. Mr.
Timmerman now appeals the district court’s denial of this motion.
ISSUE
Does the district court admission
Mrs. Timmerman’s statements to law enforcement and medical personnel violate
Mr. Timmerman’s constitutional right spousal testimonial privilege.
Procedural History
The State of Utah Supreme court
denied the motion Mr. Timmermann’s to quash because Mrs. Timmermann
constitutional rights did not get violate her spousal privilege rights. 
There is an exception, adopted from English common
law, exists for crimes or torts committed by one spouse against the other.  Most jurisdictions refuse to apply the
privilege in cases where one spouse is accused of committing a crime or tort
against the other.  The exception is
defined differently among the jurisdictions. 
In Connecticut, the privilege is suspended only for crimes of bodily
injury or violence by one spouse against the other.[47]