Wigmore, supra § 2239, at 242-247. Known as the “necessity” exception, see Morgan, supra, 363 A.2d at 1004, this rule was based on the recognition that if a wife could not testify against her husband, he would have a “vested license to injure her in secret with complete immunity.” Wigmore, supra, § 2239 at 242. Indeed, as Professor Wigmore points out, a necessity exception is also justified on the ground that the “very reason of the privilege [the promotion of marital peace] ... is lacking.” Id. In recent years other courts have recognized that the policies underlying the exception for crimes committed against the spouse apply with equal force when a spouse is charged with crimes committed against a child of either spouse. See Adams v. State, 563 S.W.2d 804, 809 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Allery, 526 F.2d
holding that the initial disclosure of a crime to one spouses without more is covered by the marital communications privilege holding that assets acquired subsequent to separation are not considered marital property absent evidence that spouse used marital property to obtain them holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital holding that marital communications which arise from an act of violence by a spouse committed against the children of either spouse should constitute an exception to the marital privilege because such communications fail to satisfy the conditions underlying the creation of the privilege recognizing a childabuse exception to marital communications privilege