re: Maryland law, when I was present for a court hearing in that state, there was a case up before the one I was there for. A woman took the stand, and claimed spousal immunity in the case against her husband. The judge explained to her that she was allowed to do this just once, and asked if she was sure she wanted to use this “Get Out of Testifying Free” card at that time. She was sure.
Glad to help rattle the old neurons pravnik (that’s half the fun of this board not too mention that I am now wiser for it as well).
So, it would seem that the answer to the OP, “Has this ever actually been a law in any country? Is it still, anywhere?”, would be:
Yes, it has been a law in this (the US) country and the law, to varying but mostly lesser degrees, does still exist. As for other countries I couldn’t say but I bet men, at least, are pretty well protected from their wives in places like Afghanistan or Iran (just a guess though).
You have got to be kidding me. I never learned this when I was studying for the Maryland bar.
There’s something similar in France, though I don’t remember the specifics. What I remember if that some relatives (spouse, children and parents, I believe) don’t swear to say the truth in courts, and can’t be charged if they lie. I don’t know whether they can plainly refuse to testify or not.
Did you read my quote and link earlier in this thread? I can’t vouch for th accuracy of the website linked but it does seem to support what peepthis said.
We have a strange case in my state that is being appealed because of the “wife can’t testify against the husband” law. I haven’t been following this real close, but I will state this as I understand the case.
A man and a woman faked a robbery at the womans workplace. Their babysitter found out somehow, so they killed her. The couple then got married, and even told police this, so they couldn’t testify against each other. Both were charged with murder. The wife was given a deal(she got a shorter sentence) because the police/DA believed the husband had been the one that actually killed the babysitter. She testified against the huband and he was convicted. Upon appeal, the husband was granted a new trial because of the “wife can’t testify against the husband” law. The new trial has not started yet, should be interesting to see how it comes out.
I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that I had to read this twice to be sure that you weren’t talking about practicing consensual sodomy. 
Carry on.
It may be legally significant that you were not married at the time the crime occurred. Some jurisdictions may have laws prohibited creating an immunity by marrying a witness after the crime occurred.
The English common law was that a spouse was not a competent witness, period. Neither the Crown nor the defence could call the accused’s spouse.
This was a variant of the fact that the accused was not a competent witness, either, and could not testify in his/her own defence. The law took the view that a married couple was one entity for this purpose, and therefore since the accused was not competent, neither was the spouse.
In Canada, at the federal level this position has been modified so that both the accused and the spouse are competent witnesses for the defence, but not compellable. The Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 provides:
Similarly, the Canada Evidence Act carries forward the privilege for spousal communications:
There are exceptions to both of these provisions which I’ve not included where the spouse is the victim of the crime, or the victim is a young person, and a few other such situations.