Md. Court of Appeals says text messages between spouses can be admitted under certain conditions
Kevin and Amanda Sewell
BALTIMORE, Md. – On Wednesday it was announced that in a 2015 case of a murder of a young child, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that text messages between spouses are admissible under certain conditions and are not subject to marital privilege.
Back in May 2015, Kevin Sewell was taking care of his 3-year-old nephew, Luke Hill, while his wife Amanda was at work. During his time alone with the child, Sewell sent text messages to his wife, complaining that the child was annoying him because he didn’t listen and that “this would be the last time” he watched the child.
The next day, when Amanda returned Luke to his parents, he was found unresponsive in the car and had multiple bruises. He later died as a result of his injuries, and autopsy reports showed that Luke had sustained multiple blows to the head and body.
In September 2016, Sewell was found guilty of first degree murder, first degree child abuse, along with other related charges, and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. During his trial, prosecutors introduced text messages between Sewell and his wife regarding Sewell’s objection that the messages were confidential marital communications.
Sewell then appealed his conviction and in March of 2018 the Maryland Court of Special Appeals went on to reverse the conviction, saying that the messages were subject to marital privilege and should not have been included.
The Office of Attorney General petitioned the Court of Appeals and argued for an exception to marital privilege in child abuse cases, such as Sewell’s. It was argued that state law requires anyone with “reason to believe a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect” to report the suspected abuse to authorities and therefore communications that leave a spouse with reason to believe a child is being abused or neglected cannot be said to be privileged marital communications.
In a 6-1 decision, the Court of Appeals agreed, stating that “it is unreasonable for a spouse to assume that communication made to the other spouse, which the latter has a legal duty to report to law enforcement, is confidential.”
