concurring.
I concur in the majority’s analysis of Issues 1 and 2. I also concur in the majority’s ultimate finding that appellant is not entitled to relief pursuant to Issue 3. I write separately, however, to express my vehement disagreement with the majority’s analysis of Issue 3.
The charges against appellant stem from allegations made by a ten year old girl, Kathy Youmans, who was a frequent visitor to appellant’s household. According to Kathy, appellant forced her to perform oral sex upon him during a visit on Christmas, December 25, 1985, while appellant’s wife was sleeping in another room. As part of the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, appellant’s wife testified that appellant had told her, prior to the alleged incident, that he was desirous of adopting an older girl to complete their family, that he loved Kathy very much, and that he could only relax when Kathy was around. She further testified that her sexual relationship with appellant had been poor for several years, and that appellant had threat*348ened her in the past to leave his relationship with Kathy-alone and “let him do things his way”.
Appellant’s trial counsel did not object to these portions of the testimony of appellant’s wife. New counsel was appointed at the post-verdict stage, and trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to object to this testimony was raised in post-trial motions. In its opinion, the trial court stated that the communications in question had not been of a confidential nature, and, even if confidential, fell within an exception to the usual ban against disclosure of such communications, thereby depriving appellant’s ineffectiveness claim of any underlying merit.
It is well settled that a convicted defendant may not prevail upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless he is able to demonstrate: (1) that the issue underlying the ineffectiveness claim is of arguable merit; and (2) that the course of action chosen by counsel had no reasonable basis, independent of hindsight, in the promotion of defendant’s interests. Commonwealth v. Brandt, 353 Pa. Super. 250, 253, 509 A.2d 872, 874 (1986); Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967). Furthermore, assuming the defendant is able to meet this two-pronged test, he must then be able to demonstrate that the claimed ineffectiveness so prejudiced his defense that he did not receive a fair trial. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 345 Pa.Super. 324, 498 A.2d 423 (1985), aff’d 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987).
With respect to the underlying merit of appellant’s claim, the relevant statutory authority pertaining to the competency of spouses to testify is found at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5913 and § 5914, which state the following:
§ 5913. Spouses as witnesses against each other
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, in a criminal proceeding husband and wife shall not be competent or permitted to testify against each other, except that in proceedings for desertion and maintenance, and in any criminal proceeding against either for bodily injury or violence attempted, done or threatened upon the *349other, or upon the minor children of said husband and wife, or the minor children of either of them, or any minor child in their care or custody, or in the care or custody of either of them, each shall be a competent witness against the other, and except also that either of them shall be competent merely to prove the fact of marriage in support of a criminal charge of bigamy alleged to have been committed by or with the other.
Sjc jj{ sjc Sjc $ $
§ 5914. Confidential communications between spouses.
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, in a criminal proceeding neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to testify to confidential communications made by one to the other, unless this privilege is waived upon the trial.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In its opinion denying appellant’s ineffectiveness claim, the trial court held that: (1) the communications involved had not been confidential within the meaning of § 5914, and (2) in the alternative, even if confidential, the communications had been divulged as testimony in a criminal proceeding against appellant for “violence” to a minor in his custody, under the § 5913 exception to spousal incompetency. On the basis of this holding, the trial court found, as does the majority now, no underlying merit to appellant’s ineffectiveness claim. I disagree with that finding.
In Commonwealth v. Rough, 275 Pa.Super. 50, 418 A.2d 605 (1980), the defendant was charged with rape and corruption of the morals of his minor stepdaughter. At trial, the defendant’s wife testified to the contents of a telephone conversation in which the defendant had blamed his wife for his sexual assault of the minor victim. In its analysis of the nature of the applicable privilege, our Court stated the following:
The applicable privilege6 governing testimony by one spouse against another concerns confidential communications made during a marriage----
*350inapplicable due to an exception within the statute permitting testimony in proceedings involving violence against the minor child of either. Competency under this exception does not abrogate the general privilege concerning confidential communications made during marriage.
Rough, supra, at p. 612. (Emphasis supplied.)
While I do not dispute the finding that the “violence” exception to § 5913 removed the incompetency of appellant’s wife to give testimony, see Commonwealth v. Nadolny, 163 Pa.Super. 517, 63 A.2d 129, 130 (1949) (“violence” exception includes “physical defilement”), I take issue with the trial court’s, and the majority’s, view of the interrelationship between § 5913 and § 5914. The above footnote from Rough makes it patently clear that the removal of testimonial incompetency under the “violence” exception to § 5913, does not remove the incompetency barring a spouse from divulging the contents of confidential communications on the witness stand.
The majority finds any reliance upon the above language from Rough to be misplaced, and rejects the above analysis based upon the following beliefs: 1) the Rough footnote is both dicta, and a mere commentary that, when the “violence” exception is not involved, the general confidentiality privilege remains undisturbed; 2) such a reading of § 5913 and § 5914 flies in the face of the rules of statutory construction, defying the common sense meaning of the language therein; and 3) the above analysis sub silentio contravenes Nadolny, which is squarely on point and should be followed as the law. I shall address the majority’s concerns seriatim.
With respect to the precedential effect of the Rough footnote, the majority maintains, as a starting point, that, as the applicability of § 5914, and not § 5913, formed the basis of appellant’s claim, the reference to § 5913 was dicta, and in any event, consistent with the majority analysis.
On the contrary, I find the reference to have been part of a logical progression in the Superior Court’s competency analysis, as well as completely contradictory to the majority’s reading of the interplay between these two statutes.
*351If the majority’s position is correct, and the § 5913 “violence” exception to incompetency automatically dissolves all spousal incompetency, including the incompetency to testify to confidential communications, our Court would not have been required to resolve whether § 5914 applied to the conversation in question. An appellate court may, and should, affirm the trial court where correct on any ground, see Butler v. DeLuca, 329 Pa.Super. 383, 478 A.2d. 840, 843 (1984). Thus, a finding that the § 5913 “violence” exception had already made the testimony admissible regardless of confidentiality, would have obviated the need for further discussion. It was because of their finding that § 5913 had not opened the door to all testimony, that our Court was required to scrutinize the content and circumstances of the conversation.1
Moreover, Rough’s interpretation of the interplay between § 5913 and § 5914 is not consistent with the majority’s analysis herein. Rough could not have been any clearer than in its statement “(C)ompetency under this exception does not abrogate the general privilege concerning confidential communications made during the marriage....”. To read this statement as does the majority, i.e. that the confidentiality privilege still exists where the exception does not apply, would appear rather facile: as § 5914 remains on the books, it is patently obvious that the confidentiality privilege remains viable in some context.
The key to the meaning of this statement is to be found in the first sentence of the footnote: “(T)here is no dispute that the absolute prohibition preventing one’s spouse from testifying against the other during coverture, ..., is inapplicable due to an exception ... ”. (Emphasis supplied.)
The privilege of spousal immunity involves two separate, but related, forms of immunity. There is the “absolute *352privilege” which bars any testimony whatsoever on the part of the defendant’s spouse, now codified at § 5913. Apart from this “absolute privilege”, there is the related but independent prohibition against disclosure on the stand by the defendant’s spouse of confidential communications, as codified at § 5914.
Where I believe the majority has gone astray is in giving an overly narrow reading to what it means, for purposes of § 5913, to testify against one’s spouse.
The majority fails to recognize what is implicitly recognized in Rough: the content of a spouse’s testimony needn’t consist purely of the disclosure of words and actions revealed only in the confidence of the marital relationship. It is entirely conceivable that a defendant’s spouse would be in a position to testify to purely objective observations, or statements openly made in the presence of third parties, as would any other witness. The “absolute privilege” of § 5913 would bar the spouse from giving testimony to such observations and statements, despite the fact that they were not discovered in any confidential marital setting, or through any confidential communication, based on the legislative assumption that it is undesirable to permit spouses to give any testimony whatsoever against each other. The “violence” exception is the legislature’s recognition that, where violence has been visited upon a minor, the policy favoring the preservation of the marital relationship should give way to protection of the minor, and permitting testimony by the defendant’s spouse to objective observations and openly spoken words is but a minor intrusion upon that relationship.
Under § 5914, however, the legislature has recognized a limitation upon the degree of intrusion that is desirable. They have recognized an independent prohibition against the disclosure by a spouse, otherwise qualified to testify by removal of the bar of § 5913, of those words and actions revealed in the confidence and trust one naturally imposes in one’s spouse.
*353§ 5914, unlike § 5913, does not contain a “violence” exception. Despite the majority’s strained attempts to read the exception of § 5913 into § 5914, the logical import of this legislative omission is obvious. While the “violence” exception of § 5913 allows the defendant’s spouse to take the stand, the door is not meant to be thrown open to allow any and all testimony: the bar against disclosure of private behavior and discussions is intended to remain.
It has been held that, while the general bar of spousal incompetency set forth in § 5913 is extinguished upon death or divorce, the bar against a spouse divulging § 5914 confidential communications remains intact after death or divorce. See Commonwealth v. Clark, 347 Pa.Super. 128, 500 A.2d 440, 441, 442 n. 1 (1985); Commonwealth v. Peluso, 240 Pa.Super. 330, 361 A.2d. 852, 856 (1976), rev’d on other grounds 481 Pa. 641, 393 A.2d 344 (1978); Hunter v. Hunter, 169 Pa.Super. 498, 83 A.2d 401, 403 (1951). This, clearly, is in recognition of the legislature’s express limitation upon the amount of intrusion into the marital relationship that is to be tolerated: the legislature has recognized, simply put, that some things should never be disclosed, even after the marital relationship has ceased to exist, without the consent of the party who has entrusted his husband or wife with his or her secrets.
If the total removal of § 5913 incompetency by death or divorce does not open the door to the disclosure of § 5914 confidential communications, it is illogical and inconsistent to interpret the removal of § 5913 incompetency under the “violence” exception as abrogating the confidentiality privilege. This is precisely why our Court in Rough was obligated, once it found that the “absolute privilege” of § 5913 had been removed by the “violence” exception, to determine if the testimony admitted had permitted the defendant’s spouse to betray the trust inherent in the marital setting.
Moving, then, to the second of the majority’s concerns, it could be said that the above discussion alone demonstrates why it neither contravenes legislative intent, nor yields an “absurd” result, to read § 5913 and § 5914 in the fashion I *354now suggest. The majority, however, believes this reading ignores the “(E)xcept as otherwise provided in this subchapter” prefacing clause to § 5914, which, it insists, must refer to the exceptions to incompetency listed in § 5913.
This view, however, ignores the significance of the legislature’s inclusion of § 5915 in the relevant subchapter, which provides as follows:
§ 5915. Testimony by spouse in rebuttal
In any criminal proceeding brought against the husband or wife, if the defendant makes defense at the trial upon any ground which attacks the character or conduct of his or her spouse, the spouse attacked shall be a competent witness in rebuttal for the Commonwealth.
This provision, apparently, removes the bar of incompetency under either § 5913 (which contains the same “(E)xcept as otherwise provided in this subchapter” clause) or § 5914, where applicable. Unlike the majority, I fail to see why the preface to § 5914 must be read as referring to both § 5913 and § 5915. I believe it rather obvious that the preface as stated in both § 5913 and § 5914, was intended to permit the defendant’s spouse to defend himself or herself against the defendant’s slurs. As with the balancing of interests engaged in by the legislature in formulating § 5913 and § 5914, it is clear that the legislature determined that the usual policies favoring marital relations should give way when the defendant has seen fit to waive the protections of marriage, and impune the character and conduct of his or her spouse.
Finally, I would dispute the majority’s conclusion that the above analysis, in effect, contravenes Nadolny. While it is likely that Nadolny’s admission of guilt to his wife was made in a confidential setting (although the facts as given do not give the circumstances of their conversation), there is no indication that Nadolny ever raised the bar of confidentiality in his arguments either in the lower court or on appeal. While an appellate court is free to affirm the trial court on a correct rationale sua sponte, Butler, supra., it may not reverse upon an issue not raised by appellant, and *355therefore is precluded from considering potential grounds for reversal sua sponte. Pa.R.A.P. 302, 2116(a). Only issues of appealability or jurisdiction may be considered sua sponte. See Richards v. Trimbur, 374 Pa.Super. 352, 358, 543 A.2d. 116, 118 (1988).
In light of the foregoing, I cannot and do not concur in the majority’s laudable but misguided attempt to secure what may be desirable testimony in criminal cases involving violence-ridden domestic situations, through a patent misreading of the interrelationship between § 5913 and § 5914.
I would thus proceed in my analysis to a determination as to whether the involved communications were confidential.
Upon review of the content and circumstances of the communications, I do not agree with the trial court finding that the statements pertaining to Kathy were not intended to be confidential. While appellant’s desire to adopt an older child was not a secret, it cannot be averred that statements pertaining to his inability to relax in Kathy’s absence, and his threats to his wife warning her not to interfere in his relationship with Kathy, were not made in the confidence of the marriage. Such statements permit an inference that appellant’s relationship with Kathy had abnormal overtones, and in all likelihood would not have been made but for the trust and confidence that the marital relationship inspires. Rough, supra, 418 A.2d at pp. 612-13.
Furthermore, I do not find confidential intent lacking on the basis of appellant’s willingness to testify to these statements at trial, as did the trial court. Following the testimony of appellant’s wife, appellant was placed in the position of having to negate the inferences created by her testimony, and naturally wished to put the statements in a more favorable light. Had appellant’s trial counsel raised objection to the wife’s testimony, appellant would not have been compelled to address the divulged statements.
Hence, I find arguable merit to appellant’s ineffectiveness claim.
*356However, as stated above, we may affirm the trial court if correct on any ground. Butler, supra. I would do so, as I cannot say that trial counsel could not have had a reasonable basis for his failure to object.
Part of appellant’s theory of defense was that the charges had resulted from his wife’s jealousy of his relationship with Kathy, and from her bitterness in connection with their impending divorce. Hence, it is possible that trial counsel had merely wished to discredit the charges by permitting the challenged testimony, and then by introducing appellant’s own testimony pertaining to these statements, in which appellant spoke at length about his wife’s irrational jealousy and mischaracterization of what was, in appellant’s eyes, a normal father-daughter relationship. While this trial strategy was a gamble, the test is not whether more reasonable trial strategies were available, but rather, whether trial counsel had some reasonable basis for the strategy chosen. Maroney, supra, 235 A.2d at p. 352.
Trial counsel offered no explanation for his chosen strategy at the post-verdict evidentiary hearing. However, post-verdict (now appellate) counsel deliberately chose not to interrogate trial counsel upon this point, and elected to present the testimony of appellant only, pertaining to trial counsel’s failure to call various character witnesses. With respect to the strategy behind trial counsel’s failure to object to Mrs. Hancharik’s testimony, post-verdict counsel agreed to “waive any argument other than what’s in the memorandum” in support of post-verdict motions. (Post-Verdict Hearing Transcript, p. 2.) As such, appellant has chosen to rely upon the record to support his current ineffectiveness claim.
Moreover, it is well settled that this Court may find counsel’s actions effective if any reasonable basis for those actions exists. Commonwealth v. Osborn, 364 Pa.Super. 505, 520, 528 A.2d 623, 630 (1987). Hence, where the record before us is sufficient to determine that there exists a plausible basis for counsel’s strategy, and that basis is not *357inherently unreasonable, there is no requirement that the actual reason for counsel’s actions be determined at an evidentiary hearing. Commonwealth v. Marsh, 460 Pa. 253, 333 A.2d 181, 183 (1975). I believe the record below is sufficient for this Court to make such a determination.
As I cannot deem the apparent chosen strategy inherently unreasonable, I would find that appellant has failed to satisfy the second prong for demonstrating ineffectiveness.
It is for this reason that I concur in the majority’s ultimate refusal to grant appellant relief pursuant to Issue 3, and would affirm the judgment of sentence.
There is no dispute that the absolute prohibition preventing one spouse from testifying against the other during coverture, ..., is
. If any portion of the Rough opinion could be classed as dicta, it is that portion which the majority herein finds to be the holding of Rough: the discussion on whether admission of the conversation, even if erroneous, would have been harmless error. Once the Court had found the conversation admissible, it should not have proceeded to consider the question of harmless error.