State v. Martin
| Decision Date | 17 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 22790-8-II,22790-8-II |
| Citation | 91 Wn.App. 621,959 P.2d 152 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Scott A. MARTIN, Defendant, and Rich Hamlin, Petitioner. |
Steven T. O'Ban, Seattle, for Appellant Hamlin.
Gary Edward Hood, John Robert Connelly, Gordon Thomas Honeywell, Tacoma, for Defendant Martin.
Steven Timothy McFarland, Annadale, VA, for Amicus Curiae Christian Legal Society.
Kathleen Proctor, W. Stephen Gregorich, Pierce County Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, Tacoma, for Respondents.
Pastor Rich Hamlin appeals a trial court order finding him in contempt for refusing to provide testimony in the criminal trial of Scott Anthony Martin, whom the State charged with second degree murder for the death of his infant son. We hold that Martin's statements to Pastor Hamlin, to the extent they were confidential, are privileged under RCW 5.60.060(3). We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Pastor Hamlin is an ordained minister of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Tacoma. On July 7, 1997, Leona Harri, Scott Martin's mother, contacted Pastor Hamlin at the offices of Youth for Christ of Tacoma, where Pastor Hamlin works part-time. Harri expressed concern for her son and requested that Pastor Hamlin meet with Martin at his apartment. Pastor Hamlin had not met either Martin or Martin's mother before this time.
Later that day, Pastor Hamlin went to Martin's apartment. When Pastor Hamlin arrived, Harri was present in the apartment and introduced the pastor to Martin as "the preacher." Harri remained in the apartment during Pastor Hamlin's "spiritual" consultation with Martin, which lasted about 60 to 90 minutes. Pastor Hamlin met with Martin on at least two additional occasions before Martin turned himself over to the police. One meeting took place at Madigan Army Medical Center, where Martin was accompanied by his mother, wife, and several others, and the other at a friend's home in Federal Way.
On July 9, 1997, Detective Brent Bomkamp of the Pierce County Sheriff's Department spoke with Martin, who at that time asked to speak to an attorney. On July 10, Detective Bomkamp also met with the infant's mother, who stated that Martin admitted to her the previous day that he "did it." She told the detective that Martin told her that he had shaken the infant on July 5, 1997, because the infant was fussing and Martin lost control.
On July 11, 1997, the State charged Martin with second degree murder for the death of his three-month old son. The State alleged that Martin caused the child's death by violently shaking the infant.
On September 24, 1997, the State filed a motion requesting the trial court to determine whether the statutory clergy privilege, RCW 5.60.060(3), applied to Martin's statements to Pastor Hamlin. The trial court relied upon State v. Buss, 76 Wash.App. 780, 887 P.2d 920 (1995), and determined that the privilege did not apply. According to the trial court, the third prong of the Buss test had not been satisfied "as there was no showing through testimony presented that defendant [Martin] felt he was constrained by any religious obligation to make the statement he made to Pastor Hamlin."
Martin then petitioned the Supreme Court for discretionary review. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition.
On November 24, 1997, the State moved for an order allowing the State to depose Pastor Hamlin. On December 4, 1997, the trial court ordered Pastor Hamlin to appear for a deposition on December 16, 1997. At the deposition, Pastor Hamlin answered questions concerning the circumstances of his conversations with Martin, but refused to answer questions regarding the content of those conversations based upon his religious free exercise rights.
On January 8, 1998, the trial court heard argument to determine whether Pastor Hamlin had a legitimate constitutional basis for refusing to disclose the contents of his conversations with Martin. The State became aware of Pastor Hamlin's involvement when Detective Bomkamp met him at Madigan Army Medical Center while the detective was investigating a report of the infant's injuries. Pastor Hamlin told the detective that he had met with Martin and his mother, and that Martin had disclosed more information to the pastor than to Child Protective Services. The State had also learned of Pastor Hamlin's conversations with Martin through a Child Protective Services referral. In addition, at some point after meeting with Martin, Pastor Hamlin allegedly disclosed part of the conversations to two colleagues at Youth for Christ.
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and determined that Pastor Hamlin did not have an independent constitutional right to withhold information from the State. The court entered an order of contempt for Pastor Hamlin's failure to answer questions regarding the substance of his conversations with Martin. Because Pastor Hamlin continued to refuse to disclose the requested information, the trial court ordered him to report on January 16, 1998, to be taken into custody for violating the court's order.
Pastor Hamlin then petitioned this court for discretionary review. A commissioner determined there was a debatable issue, based upon Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir.1997), 1 granted review, and stayed the contempt order pending appeal. This court also granted the State's request for an emergency stay of Martin's criminal trial pending Pastor Hamlin's contempt appeal.
Pastor Hamlin contends that he cannot be compelled to testify as a clergy member because his conversations are privileged under RCW 5.60.060(3). In response, the State cites Buss, 76 Wash.App. 780, 887 P.2d 920, and submits the privilege is unavailable because (1) the "course of discipline" of Pastor Hamlin's religion does not "enjoin" its members to make individual, private confessions of sins, (2) Martin was not enjoined by any church doctrine to make a confession, and (3) Martin's conversations with Pastor Hamlin were not confidential.
The clergy member privilege, RCW 5.60.060(3), provides that
[a] member of the clergy or a priest shall not, without the consent of a person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to him or her in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs.
In construing this statute, the trial court here concluded that Martin's statements to Pastor Hamlin were not privileged. Following Buss, 76 Wash.App. 780, 887 P.2d 920, the trial court ruled that the defendant bore the burden to demonstrate that three elements were satisfied: (1) that his communication to Pastor Hamlin was a "confession;" (2) that Pastor Hamlin received the confession in the course of the discipline to which he belonged; and (3) that the confessor, Martin, felt constrained by his religious doctrine to disclose his alleged criminal conduct to a clergy member.
The trial court determined that the clergy member must first consider the communication a "confession" and that the individual making the penitential statements must likewise "feel constrained to make a confession." Based upon this interpretation of the statutory privilege, the trial court ruled that Martin's statements to Pastor Hamlin, although confessional in nature, were not protected because Martin failed to adequately demonstrate that he felt constrained by his religious beliefs to disclose his alleged criminal conduct. As the trial court stated, Martin may have "felt a need to say something," but the requisite "sense of spiritual obligation" was not present.
In Buss, the defendant met with a "non-ordained family minister" after a Catholic Church referral for counseling, during which time the defendant made incriminating statements. Narrowly interpreting the clergy member privilege, the court explained that non-ordained church counselors were not "clergy" within the meaning of the statute. The court further explained that the terms "confession" or "course of discipline" included "only the sacrament of confession," and, adopting language from 5A KARL TEGLAND, WASH. PRAC, EVIDENCE § 184, at 78 (3d ed.1989), stated that "[o]nly confessions specifically authorized by particular churches seem to be included." Buss, 76 Wash.App. at 786, 887 P.2d 920. Because the church counselor was not a clergy member and the counseling session did not amount to a confession, the court held that the privilege did not protect the defendant's statements. Buss, 76 Wash.App. at 786, 887 P.2d 920.
Critical to the Buss court's holding was that the church counselor was "non-ordained." Buss, 76 Wash.App. at 784-85, 887 P.2d 920. But also significant was that "[n]othing in the record suggests that Buss [the defendant] was constrained by her religious doctrines to disclose her criminal actions" to the church counselor. Buss, 76 Wash.App. at 786, 887 P.2d 920. The court therefore held that the " 'discipline enjoined by the church' requirement is not satisfied." Buss, 76 Wash.App. at 786, 887 P.2d 920.
We disagree with the Buss court's interpretation of the clergy member privilege, and decline to follow its reasoning. We hold that the statutory privilege applies to Martin's confidential statements made to Pastor Hamlin and therefore reverse the trial court. 2
The trial court determined that Martin's conversations with Pastor Hamlin were "confessional in nature." In construing the term "confession," the trial court explained that a statement was confessional if the clergy member receiving the communications "considers it to be a confession." The trial court reasoned that whether a statement was a confession was for the religion to decide, and it was not the trial court's role to decide what types of communications...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Drake
... ... 's conclusion that the civil rules "dot not limit work product protection to parties to the instant litigation." 53 CR 26(b)(4) and (b)(5) state that work product must be prepared, acquired, or developed in anticipation of litigation "by or for another party." The rules simply do not address ... Martin, 91 Wash.App. 621, 634-35, 959 P.2d 152 (1998), aff'd, 137 Wash.2d 774, 975 P.2d 1020 (1999) ("[t]he communicant is the holder of the ... ...
-
Atwood v. Schriro
... ... COUGHENOUR, District Judge ... Frank Jarvis Atwood (Petitioner), a state prisoner under sentence of death, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is imprisoned and ... O'Connor, 209 Ariz. 380, 385, 103 P.3d 292, 297 (App.2004) (quoting State v. Martin, 91 Wash.App. 621, 959 P.2d 152, 157 (1998)). Nor can Petitioner establish that the alleged "confession," one letter out of a multitude written over ... ...
-
People v. Campobello, 2-03-0725.
... 810 N.E.2d 307 348 Ill.App.3d 619 284 Ill.Dec. 654 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Mark A. CAMPOBELLO, Defendant (The Catholic Diocese of Rockford, Contemnor-Appellant) ... No. 2-03-0725 ... Lynch, all of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, for appellant ... Meg Gorecki, State's Attorney, of St. Charles (Martin P. Moltz and Sally A. Swiss, both of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), and Kristine A. Karlin, of Mt. Prospect, for the ... ...
- State v. Martin