Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Student #: 811
Section L6D
Memo 2
I. Question Presented
a. Under the New York statute C.P.L.R. 4505, can our client properly
invoke the Clergy-Penitent Privilege when compelled to testify about
two conversations he had with his congregant: (1) a conversation in a
crowded restaurant where the congregant admitted to taking money
that didnt belong to him; and (2) a conversation in the church office
where the congregant revealed his full confession to the
aforementioned act?
2
Legal Practice 1 Fall 2016
Student #: 811
Section L6D
Memo 2
c.
A clergy-congregant communication satisfies the confidentiality standard when
the congregant intends for the communication to be made in confidence with
reasonable expectation that it will be held a secret while he or she is alone with
the clergy.
Note: Include or explain the court ruling decisions in the rule explanation
Case #1:
Although the New York State Court of Appeals ultimate ruled against the
defendant in this murder trial, the court did however
In Carmona, the New York State Court of Appeals ultimately concluded that the
trial courts did not err in ruling the defendants conversations with the two
ministers as privileged communication because it was protected under NY CPLR
4505, and thus inadmissible as evidence in his trial. The particular conversation in
question / on trial contained the defendants confession of the murder. Thus the
lower courts found that Carmonas conversation the reverend was intended to be
confidential because the defendant purposefully waited until they were alone
before admitting to the murder, rather than immediately divulging upon meeting
the minister.
Similarly, the Court of Appeals in Reyes held that the defendants communication
with Father Schmidt was a communication made in confidence because Reyes
explicitly requested to speak with the priest in his office, and furthermore, made
his inculpatory statements in the private rectory where he was alone with the priest.
In Harris, the Court of Appeals held that Harris conversation with the deacon,
who was also an off-duty police detective was not protected by the privilege
because a conversation in a car with other people in it, is not made in confidence.
The court interestingly points out that Harris could have made the car setting
private by closing the doors and ensuring they were alone, but because this was not
done, it was not confidential.
3
Legal Practice 1 Fall 2016
Student #: 811
Section L6D
Memo 2
4
Legal Practice 1 Fall 2016
Student #: 811
Section L6D
Memo 2
In People v. Carmona, the Court of Appeals held that Carmonas conversation with
the two priests was protected under the privilege because he sought spiritual
guidance upon meeting with the two priests, whereby the priests replied in their
professional character as spiritual advisor.
Case #2:
In People v. Reyes, the Trial Court of Queens County found that Reyes
conversation with Father Schmidt was made within a spiritual capacity because the
incriminating details in the rectory. Furthermore, Reyes sought spiritual guidance
when he explicitly requested to pray with Father Schmidt.
Case #3:
In People v. Harris, the Trial Court of Kings County held that the privilege was not
properly invoked because they determined that the conversation in the car was not
confidential and because the Deacons role in the Church was administrative
business focused, instead of one as a spiritual advisor, he was not deemed to be
acting in the sense of a clergyman.
This was a seminal case that defines a clergyman as one who provides spiritual
guidance.
Case #4:
In Cox v. Miller, the Appellate Court of the Second Department held that the
defendants confession to his fellow AA member, who happened to be a minister,
did not satisfy the spiritual advisor standard because there was no testimony from
the defendant that he sought spiritual guidance. The court emphasized that had he
asked for spiritual guidance, the conversation would have been protected because
the minister was acting in his spiritual advisor role.
occurred at a dinner that was created on the basis of a casual, as friends, event.
Under this pretense, Horan was not acting in his professional character as a
spiritual advisor. Rather, he was acting as Carters friend.
6
Legal Practice 1 Fall 2016
Student #: 811
Section L6D
Memo 2