Priest-Penitent Privilege?

[Bricker]

@kaylasdad99

That seems a little off. Like it should have been a hearsay issue, instead. At least wrt the priest’s putative testimony.

Not hearsay.

I know that this can be a complicated concept, but here’s part of a post I wrote some time back that might be helpful:

@Bricker

The OP mentions the classic statement that hearsay is inadmissible. That’s generally true, although as we’ve read above, there are many exceptions to the general rule.

But an out of court statement is perfectly admissible if it’s NOT offered to show the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. That’s not an exception to the hearsay rule – it’s simply not hearsay.

Bill wishes to testify that Abe told him, “Charlie robbed a 7-11 last night and shot the clerk dead when she gave him trouble.” What’s the purpose of this evidence? If it’s to show that Charlie participated in robbing a 7-11 and committing murder, then it’s hearsay - it’s offered to prove the truth of the statement itself.

But suppose I offer this evidence at Bill’s trial - I want to show that he heard that Charlie robbed the store and shot the clerk, and, because the clerk was his sister, flew into a rage and beat Charlie to within an inch of his life. Now the statement isn’t offered to prove whether or not the store was actually robbed by Charlie - it’s offered to show why Bill flew into a rage. It’s no longer hearsay. We don’t care if the statement itself is true or not – just that it was said.

I’m also unclear on the Church’s stance on whether the seal of the confessional should prevent a victim’s allegation from triggering mandatory reporting.

The Church’s stance is consistent with secular law: it does.