A clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi or practitioner of any religious denomination accredited by the religious body to which he belongs who is settled in the work of the ministry shall not disclose confidential communications made to him in his professional capacity in any civil or criminal case or proceedings preliminary thereto, or in any legislative or administrative proceeding, unless the person making the confidential communication waives such privilege herein provided.
(1967, P.A. 826.)
“Priest-penitent” privilege found waived where defendant testified as to what he told priest and conversation did not relate to religious or spiritual advice, aid or comfort. 171 C. 586. Cited. 211 C. 555. Clergy-penitent privilege did not exist at common law and is a creature of statute; to establish privilege, defendant must demonstrate that there was a communication, the communication was confidential, it was made to a member of the clergy within the meaning of section, communication was made to clergy member in his or her professional capacity, the disclosure was sought as part of a criminal or civil case, and defendant did not waive the privilege; in this case, defendant lacked a reasonable expectation that his inculpatory statements would be held in confidence. 300 C. 590.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1976–2011 · leading case:
State v. Rizzo, 833 A.2d 363 (Conn. 2003).
State v. Rizzo, 833 A.2d 363 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 6× “C The Privilege under General Statutes § 52-146b The defendant further claims that Abernathy’s testimony was inadmissible because it was admitted in violation of General Statutes § 52-146b, which provides: “A clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi or practitioner of any religious…”
State v. MARK R., 17 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 7× “The defendant contends that any statements he made in Getto’s presence were protected by the clergy-penitent privilege, codified at General Statutes § 52-146b, 3 and therefore were not subject to disclosure at trial without his consent.”
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 970 A.2d 656 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes § 52-146b provides: “A clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi or practitioner of any religious denomination accredited by the religious body to which he belongs who is settled in the work of the ministry shall not disclose confidential communications made to him in…”
Dir. of Health Affairs Policy Plan. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 977 A.2d 148 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See also General Statutes § 52-146b (communications made to clergymen not disclosable absent waiver "in any civil or criminal case or proceedings preliminary thereto, or in any legislative or administrative proceeding"); General Statutes § 52-146c(b) (communications between…”
State v. Jones, 535 A.2d 808 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “2d 241 (1962); see General Statutes § 52-146b.”
In Re James B., Jr., 714 A.2d 735 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 52-146b (privileged communications made to clergymen by penitent); General Statutes § 52-146c (privileged communications between psychologist and patient); General Statutes § 52-146d through § 52-146f et seq.”
State v. Paluga, 370 A.2d 1049 (Conn. 1976).
“” In its charge to the jury, the court left “what actually transpired on the stand, and what actually transpired in that particular phase of the testimony” to the recollection of the jury, read to them the relevant portion of § 52-146b of the General Statutes (footnote 1) and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.