priest-penitent privilege in New Jersey

2010Jun. 20, 1960), codified at N.J.S.A. 2A.-84A-23 and Evidence Rule 29.J Again, the priest-penitent privilege embodied in former Evidence Rule 29 remained moored firmly to a “confession or other confidential communication made ... in the course of the discipline or practice of the religious body to which he belongs or of the religion which he professes.” As In re Murtha, 115 N.J.Super. 380, 385 , 279 A.2d 889 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 59 N.J. 239 , 281 A.2d 278 (1971), cogently explained: Evidence Rule 29 obviously broadened the privilege to include not only a clergyman or minister, but any “o

2010Jun. 20, 1960), codified at N.J.S.A. 2A.-84A-23 and Evidence Rule 29.J Again, the priest-penitent privilege embodied in former Evidence Rule 29 remained moored firmly to a “confession or other confidential communication made ... in the course of the discipline or practice of the religious body to which he belongs or of the religion which he professes.” As In re Murtha, 115 N.J.Super. 380, 385 , 279 A.2d 889 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 59 N.J. 239 , 281 A.2d 278 (1971), cogently explained: Evidence Rule 29 obviously broadened the privilege to include not only a clergyman or minister, but any “o

2010Thus, the origin of the priest penitent privilege as well as the moving force behind the enactment of the statutory privilege was to protect the clergyperson from being forced against his or her mil to reveal confidences. [/d at 424, 640 A2d 817 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).] In the aggregate, those are the principles that must guide our discussion.

2010Jun. 20, 1947), codified at B.S. 2:97-5.1, later codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:81-9J See also Szemple, supra, 135 N.J. at 423-24 , 640 A.2d 817 (“When this country was founded, therefore, the privilege did not exist at common law____New Jersey did not recognize the privilege until it was created by statute in 1947.”) By its explicit terms, the 1947 priest-penitent privilege limited its reach only to confessions made within a specific religious context.

2010A. The Supreme Court of the United States early asserted that, as a matter of common law, “suits cannot be maintained which would require a disclosure of the confidences of the confessional[.]” Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107 , 23 L.Ed. 605 , — (1876).

2010A. The Supreme Court of the United States early asserted that, as a matter of common law, “suits cannot be maintained which would require a disclosure of the confidences of the confessional[.]” Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107 , 23 L.Ed. 605 , — (1876).

1993State v. Morehous, 97 N.J.L. 285, 295 , 117 A. 296 (E. & A. 1922).

1993State v. Morehous, 97 N.J.L. 285, 295 , 117 A. 296 (E. & A. 1922).

1993But see In re Schuman, 114 N.J. 14, 20-21 , 552 A. 2d 602 (1989), where the court recognized the "public's right to everyone's evidence," but determined the newsperson's privilege was more significant, preventing the State from obtaining from a reporter admissions made to him by a defendant in a murder trial; State v. J.G., 261 N.J.

1993Town of Morristown v. Woman's Club of Morristown, 124 N.J. 605, 610 , 592 A. 2d 216 (1991).

1993Town of Morristown v. Woman's Club of Morristown, 124 N.J. 605, 610 , 592 A. 2d 216 (1991).

1993As the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 186 (1980): The priest-penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return. [ 445 U.S. at 51 , 100 S.Ct. at 913 , 63 L.Ed. 2d at 195 .] That is the popular notion of the purpose and scope of the privilege.

1993As the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 186 (1980): The priest-penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return. [ 445 U.S. at 51 , 100 S.Ct. at 913 , 63 L.Ed. 2d at 195 .] That is the popular notion of the purpose and scope of the privilege.

1971Privileges, he said, must be strictly construed, citing State v. Briley, 53 N.J. 498 (1969).

1971In view of the obvious policy of the law to enlarge the domain of competency of witnesses and to adapt rules of evidence to the successful development of the truth, competency should be regarded as the rule and incompetency as the exception. * * * It follows therefore that when a greater public interest is served by recognizing the competency of one spouse to testify against the other and no violence is done to the privilege as expressed in a statutory or judicial rule of evidence, the testimony should be received. [ 53 N.J. at 506 ; citations omitted] Applying what was said in Briley to Siste