## Facts

- William Hussey was indicted for assault and battery on his wife, Beulah Hussey.
- Beulah testified that Hussey kicked her leg and struck her head and side with his fist, causing considerable pain but no permanent injury.
- Beulah also testified that she gave no provocation for the violence.
- Hussey argued (1) a husband could administer “moderate chastisement” without criminal liability unless it threatened permanent injury, and (2) his wife was not a competent witness against him regarding the battery or lack of provocation.
- The trial court instructed the jury that a husband could give “moderate correction” to enforce obedience to lawful commands, but had no right to beat his wife from wantonness or wickedness; if the jury believed the wife’s account that the violence was without cause, it should convict.
- The jury convicted Hussey, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a wife is a competent witness against her husband in a prosecution for battery upon her person when no lasting injury was inflicted or threatened.
2. Whether the asserted common-law right of “moderate correction” bars criminal liability for a husband’s assault on his wife when the conduct causes only temporary pain.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the conviction.
- The court held the wife was not a competent witness against her husband to prove a battery on her person unless a lasting injury was inflicted or a lasting injury was threatened.
- Because the evidence described pain without permanent injury and did not show a threat of lasting injury, the wife’s testimony should not have been received, and the conviction could not stand.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the common-law rule of spousal incompetency, neither spouse may testify against the other, subject to a narrow exception for violence likely to produce lasting injury or threatening such injury.
- A wife may testify against her husband for violence to her person only when she is the sole witness and the offense is of a character likely to produce, or threatening to produce, lasting injury.
- Temporary pain, without permanent injury or a threat of permanent injury, does not satisfy the threshold for admitting spousal testimony against the accused spouse.
- The admissibility of the wife’s testimony is distinct from the substantive question whether the husband’s conduct would otherwise be criminal.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Hussey’s assault-and-battery conviction because the prosecution relied on his wife’s testimony in a case involving only temporary pain, and the law permitted spousal testimony against the husband only where lasting injury was inflicted or threatened.


State v. Hussey, 44 N.C. 123 (N.C. 1852)