## Facts

- Robert Paul Thornton and Arlene Thornton were married.
- A municipal court entered a no-contact order prohibiting Robert from contacting Arlene.
- While Arlene was at work, Robert allegedly entered Arlene’s residence without permission by breaking a window.
- Robert allegedly slashed Arlene’s waterbed with a butcher knife and stole her suitcase.
- A neighbor observed Robert inside the residence and called police; Robert fled before officers arrived.
- The State charged Robert with residential burglary under RCW 9A.52.025.
- Robert moved to exclude Arlene’s testimony under RCW 5.60.060(1), which generally bars a spouse from testifying for or against the other spouse without consent.
- The trial court, treating prior Washington precedent as limiting the “crime against the other spouse” exception to personal-violence crimes, excluded Arlene’s testimony and dismissed the charge without prejudice.
- The State appealed the dismissal to the Washington Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether residential burglary of a spouse’s dwelling, involving unauthorized entry, property damage, and theft, is a “crime committed by one spouse against the other” under RCW 5.60.060(1).
2. Whether the statutory exception to spousal incompetency is limited to crimes of personal violence against the spouse.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the order excluding the wife’s testimony and the resulting dismissal.
- The court held that the charged residential burglary was a “crime committed ... against” the wife within RCW 5.60.060(1).
- The court rejected and overruled prior decisions that had confined the exception to crimes involving personal violence.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the wife’s testimony admissible under the statutory exception.

## Legal Principles

- The RCW 5.60.060(1) exception for a “crime committed ... against” the other spouse is not limited to offenses involving physical injury or personal violence.
- A spouse’s unlawful entry into the other spouse’s dwelling, coupled with property destruction and theft directed at the spouse’s interests, qualifies as a crime “against” the spouse for purposes of the exception.
- Spousal incompetency rules, as limits on relevant evidence, are construed narrowly; courts should not add restrictions (such as a personal-violence requirement) not supported by statutory text.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted RCW 5.60.060(1) to permit spousal testimony when the charged offense is directed against the other spouse’s person, dwelling, or property, and held that residential burglary of a spouse’s home falls within the “crime against spouse” exception, allowing the prosecution to proceed.


State v. Thornton, 835 P.2d 216 (Wash. 1992)