People v. Bragg
296 Mich. App. 433
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant Samuel Dale Bragg faced a first-degree criminal sexual conduct charge based in part on Pastor Vaprezsan's testimony about defendant's admissions.
- Vaprezsan, a Baptist minister, was asked to testify after the district court admitted his account of a conversation with defendant regarding the 2007 assault.
- Defendant moved to exclude Vaprezsan's statements under the cleric-congregant privilege (MCL 767.5a(2)); the district court initially admitted the pastor's testimony.
- The circuit court later held that the cleric-congregant privilege applied to bar Vaprezsan's testimony and affirmed the exclusion.
- The appellate court conducted a narrow review of whether the pastor could testify about confidential statements made by a congregant to a cleric; it concluded the privilege applied and the statements were privileged and confidential.
- The case proceeded to trial absent the pastor’s testimony, and the court’s ruling was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 767.5a(2) grants an evidentiary privilege for communications to a cleric | Bragg (prosecution) argued the privilege did not apply because a third party was present and the communication was not a confession | Bragg contended the statements were made to a pastor in a confidential, disciplinary context and thus privileged | Yes, privilege applied; statements privileged and confidential under MCL 767.5a(2) |
| Whether the presence of K. waived the privilege | Prosecution argued K.'s presence destroyed confidentiality | Defendant argued presence did not destroy confidentiality given the minor context | No waiver; presence of a relative did not defeat confidentiality under the statute |
| Whether initiator of the conversation affects the privilege | Initiator mattered to privilege applicability | Initiator does not change protection because the communication itself is privileged | Initiator irrelevant; privilege applies to the communication regardless of who initiated it |
| How to harmonize MCL 600.2156 with MCL 767.5a(2) for cleric communications | Argued 600.2156 precludes disclosure in court only for confessions | Argued 767.5a(2) provides a broader, evidentiary privilege for confidential communications | 767.5a(2) governs as the newer, more specific privilege; harmonized interpretation applied |
| Whether Bragg waived the cleric-congregant privilege | Waiver occurred because the pastor disclosed information to authorities | Waiver requires holder's action; K.'s presence alone does not waive; Bragg did not initiate or reveal content | No waiver; Bragg preserved privilege; circuit court proper in precluding testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipsczinska v. Lipsczinska, 212 Mich 484 (Mich. 1920) (early cleric-congregant privilege; confidentiality emphasized)
- Bassil v Ford Motor Co, 278 Mich 173 (Mich. 1936) (presence of an intimate relation does not automatically waive privilege (doctor-patient context))
- Grubbs v. Kmart Corp., 161 Mich App 584 (Mich. App. 1987) (confidentiality upheld with parent presence in attorney-like privilege discussions)
- Wirtanen v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America, 27 Mich App 260 (Mich. App. 1970) (noting limits of minister testimony and privilege analysis)
- Archibeque v. State, 223 Ariz. 231 (Ariz. App. 2009) (defining 'professional character' and the cleric's role in privilege)
- Scott v. Hammock, 870 P.2d 947 (Utah, 1994) (confidential communications for religious guidance; privilege scope broader than confessions)
- In re Contempt of Swenson, 183 Minn. 602 (Minn. 1931) (discipline/enjoined practice as basis for privilege scope)
- Cox v. United States, 296 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2002) (requires confidential, spiritual guidance purpose for privilege in federal context)