§57-3-9. Communications to priests, nuns, clergy, rabbis, Christian Science practitioners or other religious counselors not subject to being compelled as testimony.
No priest, nun, rabbi, duly accredited Christian Science practitioner or member of the clergy authorized to celebrate the rites of marriage in this state pursuant to the provisions of article two, chapter forty-eight of this code shall be compelled to testify in any criminal or grand jury proceedings or in any domestic relations action in any court of this state:
(1) With respect to any confession or communication, made to such person, in his or her professional capacity in the course of discipline enjoined by the church or other religious body to which he or she belongs, without the consent of the person making such confession or communication; or
(2) With respect to any communication made to such person, in his or her professional capacity, by either spouse, in connection with any effort to reconcile estranged spouses, without the consent of the spouse making the communication. This subsection is in addition to the protection and privilege afforded pursuant to section three hundred one, article one, chapter forty-eight of this code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1990–2017 · leading case:
State v. Potter, 478 S.E.2d 742 (W. Va. 1996).
State v. Potter, 478 S.E.2d 742 (W. Va. 1996).
· cites it 6× “On appeal to this Court, the defendant asserts the circuit court erred by: (1) admitting into evidence the defendant’s confession where the interrogating police officer continued his interrogation after the defendant allegedly invoked his right to counsel; (2) permitting the…”
State Ex Rel. Allstate v. Madden, 601 S.E.2d 25 (W. Va. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Code § 33-11-4(9) (1985) (Repl.Vol.2000). [3] Other types of relationship-based privileges protecting confidential communications include the spousal privilege and the priest-penitent privilege.”
State v. Lowery, 664 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Code, 57-3-9 (1992), if four tests are met: (1) the communication must be made to a clergyman; (2) the communication may be in the form of a confidential confession or a communication; (3) the confession or communication must be made to the clergyman in his professional…”
State v. Martin, 975 P.2d 1020 (Wash. 1999).
“§ 78-24-8(3); W. Va.Code § 57-3-9(1). [68] See State v.”
State v. Martin, 975 P.2d 1020 (Wash. 1999).
“§ 78-24-8 (3); W Va. Code § 57-3-9(1). See State v. MacKinnon, 957 P.”
State of West Virginia v. Norma G. (W. Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “’s counsel argued that under West Virginia Code § 57-3-9, no member of the clergy “shall be compelled to testify in any criminal or grand jury proceedings .”
Griffin v. State of West Virginia (S.D.W. Va 2017).
· cites it 2× “The Court erred in suppressing the testimony of Ray Proops, as a communication between testifying witness, Jack Griffin, and his pastor under W.Va. Code § 57-3-9. 10. Cumulative error.”
— W. Va. Code § 57-3-9(1) — 2 cases
State v. Martin, 975 P.2d 1020 (Wash. 1999).
“§ 78-24-8(3); W. Va.Code § 57-3-9(1). [68] See State v.”
State v. Martin, 975 P.2d 1020 (Wash. 1999).
“§ 78-24-8 (3); W Va. Code § 57-3-9(1). See State v. MacKinnon, 957 P.”
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.