TRENTON (RNS) Ruling in the case of a man who spoke with a pastor about allegations he sexually abused his daughters, the New Jersey Supreme Court said conversations with clergy are protected from disclosure if an “objectively reasonable penitent” would believe the discussions were privileged.
The decision, delivered on Wednesday (April 7), will guide judges on how to apply the cleric-penitent privilege.
“It is the first case that sets forth a specific set of rules for the lower courts to determine whether communications between a defendant and a clergyman are admissible at trial,” said Alan Zegas, a prominent criminal defense attorney with offices in Chatham, N.J.
The court said the discussions must remain private “when, under the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable penitent would believe that a communication was secret, that is, made in confidence to a cleric in the cleric’s professional character or role as a spiritual advisor.”
The defendant, identified only as J.G., met with the Rev. Glenford Brown of the New Creation of Apostolic Faith church in a nearby park at the pastor’s request. That request was made after the children’s mother told the pastor in May 2000 her daughters said their father was abusing them.
J.G. “did not directly admit the allegations,” according to court papers.
The alleged crimes took place in North Brunswick between 1996 and 2000, according to court records. Those records also say J.G. was a fugitive until July 2006.
The men did not “explicitly discuss whether the conversation was to be kept confidential” and each left the park with a different understanding after their half-hour conversation.
Brown said he did not meet with J.G., whom he had known for more than 30 years, as a spiritual adviser but as someone who was focused on protecting the children.
J.G. — who was not a member of the church but had attended with his family, who were members — said he believed the conversation was protected because he was seeking help and spiritual counseling. A trial judge agreed, but an appeals court sided with the state, saying neither man called for the conversation to be confidential.
