Defendant Constancio was charged with rape along with two counts of the infamous crime against nature. His ex-wife testified at his trial, over his objection, that he frequently had erectile dysfunction during their marriage. Constancio was convicted. Upon appeal, Constancio objected to the admission of his ex-wifes' testimony on the theory that sexual behavior during their marriage should be classified as communication protected by the spousal privilege, citing State v. Robbins to have a basis for his objection. The issue is whether communications under the spousal privilege preventing disclosure of confidential communications extend beyond expressions intended by one spouse to convey a meaning or message to the other. The court determined that sexual behavior during the marriage is not covered under the spousal privilege. In general, sexual behavior does not qualify as an expression, and specifically, in this case, episodes of erectile dysfunction do not qualify as expression. Consequently, the trial court correctly admitted Constancio's ex-wife's testimony regarding his erectile dysfunction, and their decision was affirmed