Church Counseling Not Privileged, Court Rules

SAN FRANCISCO —  Incriminating statements made in a counseling session with a minister are not entitled to special protection and may be used at trial against a defendant, a state Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday.

The three-judge panel rejected the claim of a Marin County woman who argued that the revelations she made to an Episcopal priest to whom she had gone for help were a “sacramental confession” that under state law could not be disclosed in court.

The panel upheld a ruling by a Marin Superior Court that the so-called “minister’s privilege,” a legal protection recognized in various forms throughout the country, did not apply when an individual was seeking counseling and not forgiveness.

“Clearly, not every statement made by anyone to a minister is privileged,” Appellate Justice John T. Racanelli wrote for the unanimous panel.

The justices upheld the conviction of Sheridan Ann Edwards, who was found guilty of grand theft and sentenced to probation and four months in jail after her embezzlement of nearly $30,000 from an account held by the guild of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Belvedere.

According to trial testimony, Edwards, the guild treasurer, telephoned Father William Rankin, the church rector, in August, 1984, saying she urgently needed to discuss “a problem.”

At their subsequent meeting, she confided that she had done something “as bad as murder.” She said she had misappropriated guild funds and had borrowed money to cover the losses, but that the loan would not be available in time to cover checks issued to various charities.

Rankin offered to keep her revelation confidential or to talk to church wardens to seek their help in solving the problem. Edwards agreed--testifying later that she felt she had no choice--and the matter was taken to church wardens and the 15-member vestry. But eventually, acting on the advice of the controller of the diocese, church leaders reported the incident to police and Edwards was charged with grand theft.

At her trial, Edwards argued that her original conversation with Rankin was intended as a “penitential communication,” and that her revelations and the other evidence acquired as a result should not be used against her.

She cited a state statute that provides that “a penitent . . . has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication.”

Rankin, however, testified that he believed the statements she made to him were secular in nature and came from someone seeking counseling, not absolution.

Judge Joseph G. Wilson held that the statements were not entitled to special protection and, at the conclusion of a non-jury trial, found Edwards guilty.

The appeal court upheld Wilson’s ruling, saying it was supported by “substantial, credible evidence” in the case.

The panel’s decision was a narrow one, confined largely to the facts of the case and relying on statutory language and past rulings drawing a distinction between statements to clergy made during religious confessions and those made in other circumstances.

The court cited, for example, a 1969 state appellate ruling denying the privilege of confidentiality to statements made by a fleeing robbery suspect to a minister in a nearby church from whom he sought help. The minister urged the man to surrender and later, in the suspect’s presence, told police what had happened.

Racanelli noted that church officials had testified that priests were frequently sought for counseling--and that this function was separate and distinct from receiving a religious confession. Rankin himself testified that he believed there was no church doctrine that required him to keep confidential a revelation made during counseling.