People v. Reyes
144 Misc.2d 805, 545 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1989 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 569 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A communication made to a clergyman is privileged under CPLR 4505 if it is made to them in their professional character as a spiritual advisor with a reasonable expectation of secrecy, but an indictment supported by other sufficient competent evidence will not be dismissed solely because some evidence presented to the Grand Jury is later deemed inadmissible.
Facts:
- On or about December 16, 1988, Edwin Reyes entered a commercial residence in the County of Queens, where an acquaintance was employed.
- While inside, Edwin Reyes held several people at bay and fired a shot.
- Subsequently, Edwin Reyes left the premises and went to St. Mary’s Church, located approximately 100 yards from the 108th Precinct.
- At approximately 1:20 p.m., Edwin Reyes told Father John Schmidt's secretary that he wanted to see a priest and was told to wait in the church.
- Father John Schmidt went into the church to speak with Edwin Reyes, who appeared very distraught.
- Edwin Reyes told Father John Schmidt that he had hurt his mother, who was a member of the parish and a 'saint,' and that everyone knew he had done something very bad.
- Father John Schmidt took Edwin Reyes into the rectory, where Reyes continued, stating he made 10 or 12 people lie on the floor and had fired a shot.
- When asked by Father John Schmidt, Edwin Reyes confirmed he still had the gun and pointed to his hip, then stated he wanted to pray.
Procedural Posture:
- Edwin Reyes was charged in a 24-count indictment, including attempted murder in the second degree, by a Grand Jury.
- Father John Schmidt testified before the Grand Jury regarding his conversation with Edwin Reyes.
- A Mapp hearing was held where the court ruled that the gun taken from Edwin Reyes could be admitted at any trial of this action.
- Edwin Reyes filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Grand Jury testimony of Father Schmidt violated his right to a privileged communication.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conversation between a defendant who has committed a crime and a priest, where the defendant confesses to the acts and seeks prayer, constitute a privileged communication that should be excluded from Grand Jury testimony, and if such testimony was improperly heard by the Grand Jury, must the court dismiss the indictment?
Opinions:
Majority - William G. Giaccio, J.
Yes, the conversation between Edwin Reyes and Father Schmidt was a privileged communication under CPLR 4505, and no, the indictment does not need to be dismissed despite the Grand Jury hearing this testimony. The court determined that Edwin Reyes was seeking spiritual advice from Father Schmidt and had a reasonable expectation that his conversation would be kept secret. New York law (CPLR 4505) grants a privilege for confessions or confidences made to a clergyman in their professional capacity as a spiritual advisor. While no common-law privilege exists, the statutory privilege requires that the communication be made to the clergyman in their professional character as a spiritual advisor, with the critical question being whether the penitent sought spiritual advice. Unlike the defendant in United States v. Wells, who merely sought assistance in contacting an FBI agent, Reyes, who appeared distraught, confessed to serious acts, and expressed a desire to pray, was clearly seeking spiritual guidance. Therefore, Father Schmidt was not permitted to testify before the Grand Jury regarding this conversation. However, the indictment need not be dismissed because there was other sufficient competent evidence presented to the Grand Jury, which, standing alone, would have justified the finding of a true bill on all counts. Citing People v. Oakley and People v. Mauceri, the court established that an indictment's validity is not impaired when some evidence presented to the Grand Jury is later deemed inadmissible, provided there is other prima facie competent evidence to support the charges. The court confirmed that its earlier ruling from a Mapp hearing, allowing the gun seized from Reyes to be admitted at trial, remains unchanged.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of New York's statutory clergyman-penitent privilege (CPLR 4505), emphasizing that the communication must be made for spiritual advice with an expectation of secrecy. It also reinforces the established principle that an indictment will not be dismissed solely due to the presence of some inadmissible evidence before the Grand Jury, provided there is other sufficient, competent evidence to support the charges. The decision provides important guidance on distinguishing between evidence admissible for an indictment versus for trial, and sets a high bar for challenging indictments based on evidentiary errors at the Grand Jury stage.
