Ex-Wife Testifies In Murder Trial

There is a divorce angle in a first-degree murder trial in Vancouver, British Columbia involving a botched kidnapping, ransom failure and a strangled victim.

The testimony of an ex-spouse may seal the fate of Rajinder Kumar Benji, who in May, 1998, allegedly confessed to his then, fiancee and later wife, that he strangled a man two months earlier. This secret was disclosed as they drove to Las Vegas to get married.

Normally, a privileged communication between husband and wife would be disallowed in testimony in a criminal proceeding against a spouse. Two people living together don't enjoy the same privilege; only legally married spouses can't be required to testify against each other about confidential communications. Here the incriminating admission was made prior to marriage, so the divorced spouse can tell all.

Either party may opt to testify against the other but they may not divulge confidential communication made between them. In the U.S., the Supreme Court in 1951 upheld the privileged communication rule between spouses. Canadian courts will also uphold that well-established legal principle.

In this case, the defendant attempted to change his story, maintaining that he later told his wife that the alleged accomplice performed the strangling. The prosecutor presented a scenario that the victim made appeals to friends and family for money to pay off a debt owed the kidnapers.

In Canada courts and the press are obligated to keep secret the name of the ex- wife who promised to tell about the confession. This case is predicated on convoluted intrigue and alibis which may make conviction more difficult. Why didn't this ex-wife go to the authorities in 1998 when she became aware of her new husband's propensities for criminal acts?

The divorced wife will spill the beans, but I think that additional unexpected testimony will develop in the trial which continues before a seasoned female criminal Justice.

Click here for more.