People v. Harris
34 Misc. 3d 281 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the clergy-penitent privilege to apply, a communication must be confidential, made to a minister acting in a professional spiritual advisory role, for the purpose of seeking spiritual advice, and not waived. Non-custodial, spontaneous statements made to a police officer, even one with a dual role as a church deacon, do not require Miranda warnings if not elicited through interrogation.
Facts:
- On July 6, 2009, three individuals, Rasheed Craig, David Fuller, and Robert Holt, were shot outside an apartment building in Brooklyn, resulting in Craig's death and injuries to Fuller and Holt.
- On July 7, 2009, Robert Holt initially told Detective Patrick Crosby that he was shot but did not identify a shooter, a statement that was inconsistent with video evidence.
- Later on July 7, 2009, Paul Harris voluntarily went to the 81st Precinct and spoke to Detective Crosby, stating he heard shots after following his brother Holt downstairs, ran upstairs, and later learned Holt was shot, appearing upset and emotional but not making incriminating statements.
- On July 8, 2009, Detective Chris Wright, also a church deacon, met with Robert Holt at church, where Holt mentioned a possibility that Paul Harris was involved in the shooting but claimed Harris knew nothing.
- Later on July 8, 2009, Holt called Detective Wright and arranged a meeting near a restaurant with himself, Harris, and Harris's aunt Regina Johnson, where Harris, crying and under pressure, got into Wright's car.
- While in Detective Wright's car, with Johnson in the front seat and Holt leaning in, Harris confessed to firing shots after hearing commotion and trying to protect his brother, and later got rid of the gun; he expressed remorse, concern about going to hell, and asked to pray.
- After Harris confessed and prayed with Detective Wright, Wright suggested Harris turn himself in, and Harris agreed if Wright accompanied him, leading Wright to drive Harris and Johnson to the 81st Precinct.
- On July 10, 2009, David Fuller identified Harris from a photograph as the person who fired shots with an “AK” from inside the lobby, hitting Fuller and pushing him through a window.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Harris was charged with murder in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
- Defendant Harris filed a motion to suppress two oral statements he made to detectives.
- The court conducted an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the defendant's motion to suppress.
- At the hearing, Detectives Patrick Crosby and Chris Wright testified for the People, and the defense presented no witnesses.
- The court found the People’s witnesses to be credible.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Must a defendant's initial, non-incriminating statement made voluntarily at a precinct be suppressed when Miranda warnings were not given? 2. Does the clergy-penitent privilege apply to a defendant's confession made to a police officer who also serves as a church deacon, when the confession occurs in the presence of third parties, the deacon's church role is primarily administrative, and the confession precedes an request for spiritual solace? 3. Must a defendant's second, incriminating statement made to a police officer/deacon be suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings when the defendant was not in custody and the statement was spontaneous and not the product of interrogation?
Opinions:
Majority - Albert Tomei, J.
No, the first statement made to Detective Crosby is not suppressed. The defendant was never in custody at the time of this interview as he voluntarily went to the precinct without police contact, was treated as a potential witness, made no incriminating statements, and was permitted to leave. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required. No, the second statement made to Detective Wright is not subject to the clergy-penitent privilege. The defendant failed to establish all four criteria for the privilege. First, the statement was not confidential as it was made in the presence of Harris's aunt and brother; Harris made no effort to speak privately, and the third parties were not essential to the communication. Second, Detective Wright's role as a deacon was administrative (music, events, maintenance, youth activities) and not that of a spiritual advisor trained in counseling, as evidenced by his testimony and the church's other officials (pastor, ministers) who provided spiritual guidance. Third, the statement was not made for the purpose of seeking spiritual advice or religious counsel, as Harris first confessed the crime and only later expressed remorse and a desire for prayer, indicating his initial intent was to seek practical counsel from a sympathetic law enforcement officer. This is further supported by Holt's earlier request to Wright to intervene in his law enforcement capacity. Finally, by speaking in front of his aunt and brother, Harris effectively waived any claim of privilege. No, the second statement is also not suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings. Harris was not in custody when he met Detective Wright, and Wright had no reason to believe Harris was involved in the crime before the confession. Wright's opening question, "What do you want to talk about?", was an innocuous inquiry, not a calculated attempt to elicit an incriminating statement, and thus the statement was noncustodial, spontaneously made, and not the product of police interrogation. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the stringent requirements for invoking the clergy-penitent privilege, especially in situations involving individuals with dual professional roles. It underscores that mere religious affiliation or an incidental prayer does not automatically confer privilege; rather, the communication's confidentiality, the clergy member's specific role as a spiritual advisor, and the primary purpose of seeking spiritual counsel are paramount. The decision sets a high bar for defendants attempting to suppress confessions under this privilege, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests heavily on the party asserting the privilege. It also reinforces that Miranda warnings are only necessary when an individual is in custody and subjected to interrogation, allowing spontaneously made, non-custodial statements to be admissible even if made to an officer with a perceived spiritual connection.
