This has been brought up and explained multiple times.
The exclusion rule is that married couples cannot be played by police or DA's into selling each other out.
If the crime is against each other or children it is different.
The exception applies not by the strict statutory definition of whether the crime has a "victim" or whether it is in general an offense against public order. Even disorderly conduct can constitute such a crime. The test is not based on some list of statutes, but whether the conduct in question adversely affected the other spouse or child.
In this case, the criminal conduct resulted in a child testing positive for a high level of cocaine metabolites well above the level expected from some incidental conduct and consistent with either regular use or a high dose. This is, by definition, actual physical harm to the child as the result of this sick cuckold's conduct.
"For all of these reasons we conclude that the exception to the marital testimonial privilege provided in
Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(a), which permits spouses to testify in a criminal proceeding for a crime "committed by one against the other," applies to a prosecution for disorderly conduct if the underlying conduct was directed at and adversely affected or endangered the testifying spouse."
State v. Zais,
790 N.W.2d 853, 863 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
Other cases have involved things like compelled testimony under a grant of use immunity by one spouse against another and have upheld such compulsory testimony.
I'm not sure they could compel Qayla's testimony on the drugs and weapons per se, but possibly they could in relation to any danger posed to the children. They might have to grant her use immunity otherwise she could simply take the Fifth, and I think it might even open the door to Nick to try some maneuver like bifurcating the proceedings to avoid testimony that might prejudice the other charges where, possibly, spousal immunity does indeed apply, or stay proceedings until Qayla's case is resolved so the Fifth Amendment issue isn't there.
In short, I think the exception applies to some extent, but it might be opening a can of worms actually to go there.
A hard-charging prosecutor might go right ahead, though. While the gun and drug charges are fairly serious felonies, they aren't really life-ruiners. Most people looking at some drug conviction aren't going to conclude you're a subhuman. Abusing or endangering kids is, though. That's despicable enough it might even get Nick a rare disbarment.
(I think the guns and drugs if they lead to a conviction will at least get his license suspended and possibly in effect amount to disbarment while not being called that.)
IANAL but the prosecutor has already stated, in the motion to have the court proceedings recorded, that the nature of the charges did not have victims, including child victims. I think this means the privilege would be retained as the crime is about drugs in the home not about the children being victimized by Nick.
That isn't really relevant to the privilege, since the test is whether the spouse or child was harmed by the crime, not simply what statute the prosecution is under. For instance, the case above applied the exception to a disorderly conduct charge because the disorderly conduct in question was directed at and harmed the spouse.
In this case, regardless of the definition of the crime, a child was directly harmed by the criminally reckless conduct of the cuck and his whore. Saying that the state is the harmed party is really just a definition of a crime. A civil tort is a harm against a private individual, and a crime is against the state.
In this case, while neglect does not necessarily imply harm, there was in fact harm against a child. Drug intoxication consistent with regular use is inherently a harm.
If you listen to the hot tub stream again, I'm pretty sure Nick also insults a certain Minnesota swinger event. I don't 100% recall, but I'm pretty sure that happened. That gives the suggestion that he went and wasn't impressed with what he found there.
I think it's more the opposite. I think it's more like the church that he also insulted. He went there and THEY weren't impressed with this nasally whining cuckold pretending to be hot shit while just being basically Little Bill from Boogie Nights, a sad, miserable cuckold, not the based swinger he thought he was, while lying to the public about what a redpilled Christian family man he was.
