Jane Doe v Corporation of Presidents of Church of Jesus Christ and of Latter Day Saints:
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Schindler
, J., held that:
participants in disciplinary proceeding were ordained clergy, and thus clergy-penitent privilege protected report from disclosure, and2
neither father's agreement to allow previous confession to be used in church disciplinary proceeding, nor confidential recording and transmission of report to church authorities effected waiver of father's right to assert privilege.Facts of the case in part:John Roe's disciplinary council was held on Sunday January 10, 1999. Roe attended and apparently confessed in the course of the proceeding. The disciplinary council decided the appropriate discipline for Roe was disfellowshipment. LDS Church procedures require that an RCDA be prepared and sent to the Church headquarters in Utah when the discipline is disfellowshipment or excommunication. An RCDA is a summary of the disciplinary proceedings and describes the decision of the council. The LDS Church did not report Jane Doe's allegations that her stepfather sexually abused her to the civil authorities.
State v Archilbeque:Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gemmill
, J., held that:1
defendant's alleged confession was protected by the clergy-penitent privilege unless the privilege was waived;2
defendant did not waive the clergy-penitent privilege by having his wife present during the alleged confession;3
defendant did not impliedly waive the clergy-penitent privilege; and4
defendant's statements to his wife in advance of allegedly confessing to the bishop did not constitute a waiver of the clergy-penitent privilege.
People v Bragg:
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gleicher
, P.J., held that:1
cleric-congregant privilege is not limited to “confessions”;2
defendant's statements to his Baptist pastor, admitting to having sexually assaulted his minor cousin, fell within scope of cleric-congregant privilege;3
privilege applied regardless of whether cleric or congregant initiated the conversation; and4
presence of defendant's mother at time of defendant's communication did not waive privilege.