82 N.Y.2d 603 (1993)

A defendant’s statement to clergy is privileged, but a waiver of that privilege obtained after the defendant’s right to counsel has attached is ineffective and cannot be used to admit the clergy’s testimony at trial.

Summary

Elias Carmona was convicted of second-degree murder. Prior to trial, he sought to suppress statements he made to two clergymen in Florida, arguing they were privileged under CPLR 4505. Carmona had fled to Florida after the murder, confessed to the clergymen, and then confessed to police after they contacted him. The trial court found the clergy communications privileged but ruled Carmona waived the privilege by repeating the substance of those communications to the police. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that any waiver obtained after the indelible right to counsel attached was ineffective, but deemed the error harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Facts

Olga Estremera was killed in Carmona’s apartment. Carmona fled to Miami, Florida. In Miami, Carmona spoke with William Jaramillo, a church member, about his crime and his estrangement from the church. Jaramillo referred Carmona to Reverend Hernandez. Carmona confessed to Hernandez and Reverend Mimoso. The ministers convinced Carmona to surrender. Carmona surrendered to Miami police and confessed to Detective Torres after receiving Miranda warnings. Carmona told Detective Torres he had told the same thing to the reverends.

Procedural History

Prior to trial, Carmona moved to suppress his statements. The trial court suppressed Carmona’s statements to Detective Torres because they were obtained without counsel after his right to counsel had attached due to an outstanding arrest warrant. However, the trial court admitted the testimony of Reverends Hernandez and Mimoso, finding Carmona had waived the clergy-congregant privilege by repeating his confession to Detective Torres. Carmona was convicted of second-degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the finding of waiver but affirmed the conviction, deeming the error harmless.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the communications between Carmona and the two ministers were privileged under CPLR 4505.
2. Whether Carmona waived the clergy-congregant privilege by repeating the substance of his communications to the police after his right to counsel had attached.
3. If the admission of the ministers’ testimony was error, whether it was harmless.

Holding

1. Yes, because the communications were made in confidence and for the purpose of obtaining spiritual guidance.
2. No, because any waiver obtained after the indelible right to counsel attached is ineffective.
3. Yes, because the remaining evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals analyzed CPLR 4505, which protects confidential communications made to clergy for spiritual guidance. The court emphasized that the privilege applies broadly to ministers of all religions and is not limited to formal confessions. The Court found that the evidence supported the finding that Carmona sought spiritual guidance from the ministers. The court then addressed the issue of waiver. Although an express waiver is not required, the Court held that any implied waiver based on statements made to police after the right to counsel attached was ineffective. “Since the purported waiver flowed from the same wrong and is conceptually inseparable from the statements that were suppressed as a result of that wrong, it should be denied legal effect to the same extent that the underlying statements are denied recognition as admissible evidence in chief.” Permitting the waiver would allow the People to indirectly use illegally obtained evidence. Despite the error, the court found it harmless due to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of Carmona’s guilt, including eyewitness testimony, blood evidence, and his flight from the state. The court reasoned that the improperly admitted evidence did not contribute to the guilty verdict.