## Facts

- Eric Yale Maxon was charged with first-degree murder in Walla Walla County.
- Maxon allegedly made statements about the case to his parents on May 18–19, 1987, at their home and possibly to his father at a police station.
- The trial court found the statements were intended to be confidential.
- During prosecutorial depositions, Maxon’s parents refused to answer questions about the statements, asserting a parent-child confidential communications privilege based on constitutional privacy, common law, and public policy.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion to compel testimony and, after continued refusal, held the parents in civil contempt and ordered confinement until compliance.
- The parents sought discretionary review; after the contempt order, the Washington Supreme Court retained review to resolve whether such a privilege exists.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington recognizes a parent-child testimonial privilege for confidential communications under the federal or state constitutional right to privacy.
2. Whether Washington recognizes such a privilege under common law.
3. Whether public policy justifies judicial creation of a parent-child testimonial privilege that would excuse parents from testifying about a child’s confidential statements in a criminal case.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court declined to recognize a parent-child testimonial privilege for confidential communications.
- The court held that neither the federal nor state constitution provides a basis for such a privilege.
- The court concluded the weight of common law did not support a parent-child privilege.
- The court determined public policy arguments were insufficient to justify judicial creation of a new privilege, particularly given the truth-seeking function of criminal proceedings and the legislature’s role in defining privileges.
- The court upheld the order compelling the parents’ testimony and the related civil contempt order for refusal to answer.

## Legal Principles

- Washington law does not recognize a parent-child confidential communications or testimonial privilege absent legislative enactment.
- Constitutional protections of family life and privacy do not, by themselves, create evidentiary privileges that bar compelled testimony in criminal proceedings.
- Evidentiary privileges are exceptions to the general duty to give relevant evidence and are construed narrowly; courts are reluctant to create new privileges without clear constitutional or statutory grounding.
- The creation and calibration of broad relational privileges generally presents policy choices better addressed by the legislature than by judicial decision.

## Conclusion

Washington courts may compel parents to testify about a child’s confidential statements in criminal proceedings because neither constitutional privacy, common law, nor public policy supports a judicially created parent-child testimonial privilege, and refusal to comply may be enforced through civil contempt.


State v. Maxon, 756 P.2d 1297 (Wash. 1988)