The State’s Service on a Defendant of a Subpoena Directed at his Spouse is Not Valid Service.

State v. Briard, Minn.Ct.App., 7/13/2010.  The state had charged Ms. Briard’s husband with criminal sexual conduct, alleging that he had sexually abuse one of his daughters.  The state wanted Ms. Briard to testify at her husband’s trial to recount certain alleged admissions that her husband had made.  A sheriff’s investigator went out to the Briard’s hog farm to serve her with a subpoena to testify at the husband’s trial; the investigator served the husband/defendant with the subpoena.  Ms. Briard did not appear for her husband’s trial (which resulted in an acquittal).

So, the state charged Ms. Briard with six counts of felony contempt of court, one count for each day of her husband’s trial.  She moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that there had been insufficient service of the subpoena when the sheriff’s investigator served her husband/defendant.  The appellate court concludes that the husband/defendant was not “a person of suitable age and discretion” to effect service on Ms. Briard.  Here’s the way Ms. Briard put it:

[Ii]t is easy to imagine how a criminal defendant having to give his or her spouse a subpoena compelling her appearance to testify against the defendant, or even informing the spouse that the subpoena had been delivered, would create not only acrimony, but also a situation ripe for violence

Makes sense.