State v. Martin
| Decision Date | 06 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 67254-7,67254-7 |
| Citation | 975 P.2d 1020,137 Wn.2d 774 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. Scott A. MARTIN, Defendant, and Rich Hamlin, Respondent. |
Steven T. McFarland, Annandale, VA, amicus curiae on behalf of Christian Legal Society, et al.
John Ladenburg, Pierce County Prosecutor, Kathleen Proctor, Deputy, Tacoma, for Petitioner State.
John R. Connelly, Jr., Gary Hood, Tacoma, Steven O'Ban, Keith Kemper, Seattle, for Respondents.
Petitioner State of Washington seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division II, which reversed and remanded to the Pierce County Superior Court for further proceedings that court's decision interpreting the clergy-penitent privilege statute, RCW 5.60.060(3), and reversing its order holding an ordained minister in contempt of court for refusing to testify in a deposition for the State of Washington in a case against a defendant charged with second-degree murder in the death of his three-month-old son. We granted review. We affirm.
The questions presented in this case are: (1) whether the words "in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs" in RCW 5.60.060(3), the clergy-penitent privilege statute, refer to the penitent or to the clergy member; (2) the meaning of the word "confession" as used in the statute; (3) whether the presence of a third party during a communication between a penitent and a clergy member vitiates the privilege; and (4) whether the clergy-penitent privilege belongs to the penitent or to the clergy member. 1
On July 6, 1997, Devyn Martin, three-month-old son of Defendant Scott A. Martin, was hospitalized at Madigan Army Medical Center at Fort Lewis, Washington. 2 Upon examination, the hospital staff discovered the infant had sustained retinal hemorrhages, subdural hematoma, bilateral intraventricular bleeding and bilateral upper humeral fractures. 3 From these injuries the staff concluded the child was "a victim of abuse and the injuries were consistent with the child having been violently shaken." 4
On July 7, 1997, Respondent Rich Hamlin, an ordained minister and pastor of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Tacoma, while working at the offices of Youth for Christ of Tacoma, received a telephone call from Ms. Leona Harri asking him to meet with her son, Defendant Scott A. Martin. 5 Ms. Harri asked if the conversations between Respondent and her son would be confidential and Respondent assured her they would be. 6 At the time of the telephone call Respondent had met neither Ms. Harri nor her son. 7
The Evangelical Reformed Church is a nonprofit religious organization in the state of Washington. 8 The church's doctrine "includes as an essential element of ... worship service a confession followed by a time of silence intended to remind the congregation of the need to repent of personal sin and receive the Lord's assurance of forgiveness." 9 Individuals and families are given an opportunity to meet privately with the pastor, 10 and all services and ministries of the church are available to members and nonmembers alike. 11 In addition to his pastorate, Respondent Hamlin works part-time as assistant director of Youth for Christ in Tacoma, a Christian organization dedicated primarily to serving children between the ages of 12 and 18 years. 12
On July 7, 1997, Respondent went to Defendant Martin's apartment in Tacoma. 13 Upon his arrival, Ms. Harri introduced Respondent to her son as the "preacher." 14 At first Mr. Martin was withdrawn and apprehensive about speaking to Respondent, but with his mother's assistance he overcame his reluctance. 15 The two men then spoke for about an hour and a half during which time they prayed and Respondent provided spiritual counsel to Mr. Martin. 16 The record does not indicate when or how long Ms. Harri was present during this conversation between Respondent and her son.
On July 8, 1997, Respondent disclosed part of the conversation he had with Defendant the day before to two colleagues from Youth for Christ. 17 Respondent acknowledged he at no time received permission from Defendant Martin to discuss the substance of their July 7, 1997 conversation with anyone. 18
On July 9, 1997, Detective Brent Bomkamp, Pierce County Sheriff's Department, spoke to Mr. Martin regarding the injuries sustained by his infant son, Devyn Martin. 19 The record indicates only that Mr. Martin requested an attorney. 20 On July 10, 1997, Detective Bomkamp spoke with Mr. Martin's wife, the mother of Devyn Martin. 21 She told Detective Bomkamp that after the detective left the day before, her husband admitted to her that he "did it." 22 She said he admitted shaking the child on July 5, 1997 because the child was fussing and he lost control. 23 Mr. Martin previously had told his wife the child fell off the couch on July 2, 1997. 24
Petitioner State of Washington learned of Respondent Hamlin's involvement with Defendant Martin from a conversation Detective Bomkamp had with Respondent at Madigan Army Medical Center. 25 Respondent told Detective Bomkamp Mr. Martin had disclosed more information to him than Mr. Martin had disclosed to Child Protective Services (CPS) which was also investigating the injuries sustained by the infant Devyn Martin. 26 Petitioner State of Washington also learned of the conversation between Respondent and Mr. Martin through a CPS referral. 27
The infant Devyn Martin died on July 10, 1997. 28 An autopsy by the Pierce County Medical Examiner's Office concluded he sustained internal injuries consistent with those discovered by the staff of Madigan Army Medical Center. 29 The medical examiner classified the death as a homicide. 30
Petitioner State of Washington on July 11, 1997 filed an Information in the Pierce County Superior Court charging Defendant Scott A. Martin with murder in the second degree, in violation of RCW 9A.32.050(1)(b), for causing the death of his infant son, Devyn Martin, on July 10, 1997. 31 After the charges were filed Mr. Martin turned himself in to the Pierce County Sheriff on July 12, 1997. 32 He is presently incarcerated at the Pierce County Correctional Facility awaiting trial which has been stayed pending the outcome of this proceeding. 33
After their initial meeting on July 7, 1997, but prior to his surrendering to the Sheriff, Mr. Martin met two additional times with Respondent Rich Hamlin. 34 Their meetings took place at Madigan Army Medical Center and at the home of a friend of Mr. Martin in Federal Way, Washington. 35
On September 25, 1997, Petitioner State of Washington filed a motion in the Pierce County Superior Court requesting that statements made by Defendant Martin to Respondent on July 7, 1997 not be considered privileged under RCW 5.60.060(3). 36 Judge Brian M. Tollefson, in granting that motion, concluded "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 [Respondent] Pastor Hamlin" 37 as required byState v. Buss. 38 The trial court then issued an order allowing the State to depose Respondent Hamlin in the normal course of its investigation. 39
On October 24, 1997, Defendant Martin filed a notice for discretionary review in this Court seeking to reverse the trial court's decision granting Petitioner State's motion. 40 The Supreme Court Commissioner denied that request on January 15, 1998. 41
On November 24, 1997, Petitioner State of Washington filed a motion for an order to depose Respondent 42 which the trial court granted on December 4, 1997 in an order requiring Respondent to make himself available for deposition on December 16, 1997. 43 At the deposition, Respondent "answered questions concerning the circumstances of his conversations with [Defendant] Martin, but refused to answer questions regarding the content of those conversations based upon his religious free exercise rights" 44 under the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 45
On January 8, 1998, the trial court held a hearing on the constitutional issues, 46 and ruled Respondent did not have "an independent constitutional right to withhold information from the State." 47 An order of contempt was then entered against Respondent requiring him to report on January 16, 1998 to be taken into custody unless the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court stayed the order, or unless Respondent answered the questions he previously refused to answer. 48
Respondent then petitioned for and was granted discretionary review by the Court of Appeals, Division II. 49 The Court of Appeals also stayed the contempt order against him pending appeal, and granted Petitioner State's request for an emergency stay of Defendant Martin's criminal trial until Respondent Hamlin's appeal on the contempt charge could be decided. 50
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Honorable Elaine Houghton writing, held "[Defendant] Martin's statements to [Respondent] Pastor Hamlin, to the extent they were confidential, are privileged under RCW 5.60.060(3)." 51 The case was remanded to the Pierce County Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with that ruling, 52 and Petitioner State's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with this Court which was granted on January 6, 1999.
The earlier Court of Appeals, Division I, case of State v. Buss 53 announced three requirements which must be satisfied before communications between a member of the clergy and a penitent can be considered privileged under RCW 5.60.060(3):(1) the clergy member must be ordained; 54 (2) the statements must be made as a "confession ... in the course of discipline enjoined by the church"; 55 and (3) the penitent must be constrained by religious obligation to make the confession. 56 We agree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bragg
...state trooper, advised the defendant of his right to remain silent, and conducted a pat-down search). See also State v. Martin, 137 Wash.2d 774, 785 n. 65, 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), citing People v. McNeal, 175 Ill.2d 335, 358–359, 222 Ill.Dec. 307, 677 N.E.2d 841 (1997) (noting that although t......
- State v. Finch
-
Harris v. Drake
...privilege is personal to the client"); State v. 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 [priestpenitent] privilege"); Hager v. Bellingham, 74 Wash.App. 49, 63, 871 P.2d 1106 (1994) ("[t]he h......
-
State v. Willis
...that Phelps's wife allegedly played a role in any spiritual counseling given by Phelps. The defendant relies upon State v. Martin, 137 Wash.2d 774, 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), and In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374 (3d Cir.1990). In Martin, the court held that "the presence of a third p......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
..., 806 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1990); Kos v. State, 15 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.App. Dallas 2000); Utah Code Ann . §78-24-8(3); State v. Martin, 975 P.2d 1020, 137 Wn.2d 774 (1999); State v. Kunkel , 137 Wis. 2d 172 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). (3) in his or her professional character or role as a spirit......
-
Privileges
...by clergyperson only and may be waived by the clergyperson even against the wishes of the penitent. State v. Martin , 137 Wash. 2d 774, 975 P.2d 1020 (1999) (en banc). In an infant homicide case, the court upheld the clergy-penitent privilege §725 PRIVILEGES 7-28 with respect to a confessio......
-
Privileges
...by clergyperson only and may be waived by the clergyperson even against the wishes of the penitent. State v. Martin , 137 Wash. 2d 774, 975 P.2d 1020 (1999) (en banc). In an infant homicide case, the court upheld the clergy-penitent privilege with respect to a confession by the defendant ev......
-
Using traditional privileges
..., 806 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1990); Kos v. State, 15 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.App. Dallas 2000); Utah Code Ann . §78-24-8(3); State v. Martin, 975 P.2d 1020, 137 Wn.2d 774 (1999); State v. Kunkel , 137 Wis. 2d 172 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). 73 State, Inc., U.S., Corp., L.L.C. v. Corp., Associates, In......