|
When Corroboration is Required
The corroboration of plaintiff's testimony pertaining to the reasons for divorce is required in several jurisdictions in order to prevent collusion or fraud.
In most jurisdictions the law holds that, an explicit statute is required for the corroboration of plaintiff's testimony regarding the reasons for a divorce to be compulsory. In some jurisdictions, whether or not the plaintiff's testimony is contradicted determines the necessity of corroboration, but courts' conclusions vary on the importance of this issue. Due to the danger of collusion, corroboration may be required in some jurisdictions for uncontested cases and unnecessary in actively contested cases; other jurisdictions ignore the threat of collusion and focus on the weight of the evidence and whether the case is seriously contested.
In some jurisdictions, corroboration is required only if it is easily obtainable. Courts may normally grant a divorce on uncorroborated testimony, but often will require it if it is easily accessible.
Components of Corroboration
Jurisdictions requiring corroboration also require that it relate to all factors constituting grounds for divorce. In cases of cruelty the corroboration must describe not only acts catalyzing the divorce, but also the effect of these acts on the plaintiff. If divorce is sought on basis of desertion, corroboration must include all aspects of the desertion, including plaintiff's intent, willfulness and determination to desert. In cases concerning an unjustified refusal to have intercourse, absence of the act, the refusal and support that the refusal was unjustified must be provided by the corroboration.
Degree of Corroboration
The degree of corroboration in terms of the amount and quality, are not generally defined. Neither does the rule requiring corroboration of the plaintiff's testimony call for "confirmation" or "categorical corroboration." It is considered sufficient if the corroborative evidence is perceived as true by an impartial and reasonable mind and if it supports the plaintiff's testimony. However, usually, the trial court decides the adequacy of the corroboration. The courts require a relatively smaller degree of corroboration if there is no danger of collusion and the action is contested in good faith. The granting of the divorce is not dependant on the adequacy of corroboration alone.
Factors Acceptable as Corroboration
Where a specific statute denies divorce granted based on defendant's confessions, admissions or testimony, these factors are not sufficient as corroboration. However, sufficient corroboration may be comprised of those, if divorce is prohibited on the basis of plaintiff's testimony and if there is no danger of collusion. A conflict on the adequacy of the defendant's testimony, confessions or admissions arises if corroboration is declared necessary at common law.
Types of Evidence Admissible as Corroboration
The testimony of an eyewitness is not necessary, and evidence may be either direct of circumstantial to provide adequate corroboration. However, if better evidence is easily available, circumstantial evident may not be accepted.
Corroboration is inadequate if it constitutes inadmissible evidence, opinions or conclusions without statement of fact. Hearsay evidence, with exception or cruelty cases, is unacceptable. In cases involving a series of acts, corroboration related to a few of the acts is acceptable. It varies by jurisdiction whether corroboration related to a single act is suitable. In the case of condoning of misconduct, there is conflict of authority.
|