Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 905.06 (2026)
Communications to members of the clergy
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
905.06(1)(a)(a) A “member of the clergy” is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting the individual.
905.06(1)(b)(b) A communication is “confidential” if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.
905.06(2)(2) General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a member of the clergy in the member’s professional character as a spiritual adviser.
905.06(3)(3) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person’s guardian or conservator, or by the person’s personal representative if the person is deceased. The member of the clergy may claim the privilege on behalf of the person. The member of the clergy’s authority so to do is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
905.06(4)(4) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this section concerning observations or information that a member of the clergy, as defined in s. 48.981 (1) (cx), is required to report as suspected or threatened child abuse under s. 48.981 (2) (bm) or as a threat of violence in or targeted at a school under s. 175.32.
905.06 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R135 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 2003 a. 279; 2005 a. 253; 2017 a. 143.
905.06 AnnotationAn out-of-court disclosure by a priest that the defendant would lead police to the victim’s grave was not privileged under this section. State v. Kunkel, 137 Wis. 2d 172, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1987).
905.06 AnnotationShould Clergy Hold the Priest-Penitent Privilege? Mazza. 82 MLR 171 (1998).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1987–2012 · leading case: State v. Kunkel, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Kunkel, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “The fourth issue is whether his statements to a priest were privileged and inadmissible under sec. 905.06, Stats. We hold that Craig’s out-of-court statements were not privileged.”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of Am., 918 F.2d 374 (3rd Cir. 1990). “Code § 57-3-9 (1990); Wis.Stat. § 905.06 (1987-88); Wyo.Stat. § 1-12-101 (1989).”
People v. Bragg, 824 N.W.2d 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “260; (Pennsylvania) 42 Pa Cons Stat 5943; (Rhode Island) RI Gen Laws 9-17-23; (South Carolina) SC Code Ann 19-11-90; (South Dakota) SD Codified Laws 19-13-16 and 19-13-17; (Tennessee) Tenn Code Ann 24-1-206; (Texas) Tex R Evid 505; (Utah) Utah Code Ann 78B-1-137, Utah R Evid…”
State v. Agacki, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “1987) (explaining that "[b]ecause we conclude that the clergyman privilege is inapplicable to the out-of-court disclosures by the priest to the police, we need not decide whether the disclosures were indeed privileged under sec. 905.06(2), Stats. [the general rule of privilege…”
— Wis. Stat. § 905.06(2) — 2 cases
State v. Kunkel, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “The fourth issue is whether his statements to a priest were privileged and inadmissible under sec. 905.06, Stats. We hold that Craig’s out-of-court statements were not privileged.”
State v. Agacki, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “1987) (explaining that "[b]ecause we conclude that the clergyman privilege is inapplicable to the out-of-court disclosures by the priest to the police, we need not decide whether the disclosures were indeed privileged under sec. 905.06(2), Stats. [the general rule of privilege…”
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.