In the trial of every cause, both civil and criminal, no member of the clergy or priest
shall be competent to testify concerning any confession made to him or her in his
or her professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to
which he or she belongs, without the consent of the person making the confession.
No duly ordained minister of the gospel, priest, or rabbi of any denomination shall
be allowed in giving testimony to disclose any confidential communication, properly
entrusted to him or her in his or her professional capacity, and necessary and proper
to enable him or her to discharge the functions of his or her office in the usual
course of practice or discipline, without the consent of the person making the communication.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1990–2009 · leading case:
Brown v. State, 964 A.2d 516 (R.I. 2009).
Brown v. State, 964 A.2d 516 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 15× “Tanguay to testify to confidential communications in violation of G.L.1956 § 9-17-23 and that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance when she failed to raise certain issues on appeal notwithstanding Brown’s request that she do so.”
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 6× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-23. However, we cannot allow the Legislature to create such a sweeping privilege with regard to health-care information as to cripple the ability of the Judiciary to try and determine a wide range of civil and criminal cases.”
Smith v. O'connell, 986 F. Supp. 73 (D.R.I. 1997).
· cites it 2× “501; R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-17-23. *79 It is equally difficult to see how the hierarchy defendants would be prejudiced by any present inability to disclose “confidential” information previously imparted to them.”
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.