891 So. 2d 1260 - State v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “IgaThus, there are three legal prerequisites to finding that the clergyman privilege applies. First, it must be determined that the person to whom the communication was received is a “clergyman.” Second, it must be determined that the purpose of the communication was to seek spiritual advice or consolation. See State v. Berry, supra; State v. Tart, supra. Third, it must be determined that the communication was made privately and was not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication. However, even if those explicit requirements of the article are met, it must also be determined whether or not the communicant waived the application of the privilege. See La. C.E. art. 502(A) (“A person upon whom the law confers a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if he or his predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter.”) Whether the prerequisites to the recognition of the privilege are present is a determination to be made by the trial judge under La. C.E. art. 104(A). In making this determination, the trial court considers whether the totality of the circumstances presented indicate that the statements made by the defendant are within the communications protected by the privilege. See State v. Tart, 93-0772 (La. 2/9/96), 672 So.2d 116 ; State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 (La. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 214 So. 3d 55 - State v. Luzzo

2. “A. Definitions. As used in this Article: (1) A “clergyman” is a minister, priest, rabbi, Christian Science practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting him. (2) A communication is “confidential” if it is made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication. B. General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another person from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as spiritual adviser. C. Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person or by his legal representative. The clergyman is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege on behalf of the person or deceased person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 214 So. 3d 55 - State v. Luzzo

3. “Whether the clergyman privilege of La. C.E. art. 511 applies is determined under a totality of the circumstances test: (1) it must be determined that the person to whom the communication was received is a “clergyman;” (2) it must be determined that the purpose of the communication was to seek spiritual advice or consolation; (3) it must be determined that the communication was made privately and was not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication; and (4) even if those explicit requirements of the article are met, it must also |8be determined whether or not the communicant waived the application of the privilege.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mudd