203 So. 3d 1030
La.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Robert, Lisa, and later adult Rebecca Mayeux) sued alleging sexual abuse of Rebecca by George Charlet and that Fr. M. Jeffery Bayhi, as a priest, learned of the abuse (in part during confession) and failed to report it under La. Child. Code art. 609.
- Church moved in limine to exclude evidence of any confession; trial court denied, Court of Appeal reversed and dismissed claims against the priest and Church, and the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated and remanded for trial.
- On remand the district court declared La. Child. Code art. 609 unconstitutional as applied to priests because it would force breach of the confessional seal, thus violating free exercise of religion.
- Plaintiffs sought direct review; the Supreme Court exercised supervisory authority to address whether priests are "mandatory reporters" when hearing sacramental confession.
- The Court concluded the question is one of statutory interpretation: under La. Child. Code art. 603 and La. Code Evid. art. 511, communications in sacramental confession are "confidential communications" and priests are exempt from mandatory-reporter status for those communications; therefore art. 609 does not apply and the district court's constitutional ruling was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a priest hearing sacramental confession is a "mandatory reporter" under La. Child. Code art. 603 | Mayeux: art. 609 overrides exemptions; priest must report if he has cause to believe child endangered | Church/Bayhi: art. 603 exempts clergy for confidential communications (confession) so they are not mandatory reporters in that context | Priest is exempt for confidential sacramental confessions under art. 603; not a mandatory reporter for those communications |
| Whether La. Child. Code art. 609 is unconstitutional as applied to priests who hear confession | Mayeux: art. 609's duty to report is necessary regardless of privilege; constitutional challenge unnecessary | Church/Bayhi: applying 609 to compel breach of confession violates free exercise; statute should be read to avoid that conflict | Court vacated district court's constitutional declaration as premature because statutory interpretation resolves issue (no need to reach constitutionality) |
| Whether factual issues (was communication a confession / knowledge outside confession) preclude summary dismissal | Mayeux: testimony shows priest advised child and failed to report; confession evidence admissible because penitent may waive privilege | Church: confession evidence is privileged and irrelevant if priest not a mandatory reporter | Court: factual issues remain for the factfinder (whether communications were confessions or knowledge arose outside confession) and those questions determine applicability of reporting duty |
| Proper approach to resolving statute vs constitutional question | Mayeux: urge immediate constitutional ruling to allow admission/exclusion at trial | Church: statutory construction can and should resolve the dispute first to avoid constitutional ruling | Court: courts should avoid constitutional rulings when a statutory interpretation disposes of the case; here statute exempts confession communications so constitutional question is unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Matherne v. Gray Ins. Co., 661 So.2d 432 (La. 1995) (courts should avoid constitutional questions if unnecessary)
- Blanchard v. State Through Parks and Recreation Com’n, 673 So.2d 1000 (La. 1996) (do not anticipate constitutional issues prematurely)
- M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobile Corp., 998 So.2d 16 (La. 2008) (prefer nonconstitutional resolution when possible)
- Kenney v. Cox, 652 So.2d 992 (La. 1995) (distinguishing general duty of care from duty in specific factual context)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (duty/risk analysis in negligence requires fact-specific inquiry)
- Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Dept. of Finance, 720 So.2d 1186 (La. 1998) (legislative intent is paramount in statutory interpretation)
- Succession of Boyter, 756 So.2d 1122 (La. 2000) (rules of statutory construction aim to ascertain legislative intent)
- State v. Johnson, 884 So.2d 568 (La. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Com’n, 728 So.2d 855 (La. 1999) (legislative history and contemporaneous circumstances as interpretive aids)
- Unwired Telecom Corp. v. Parish of Calcasieu, 903 So.2d 392 (La. 2005) (exercise of the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction)
- Progressive Security Ins. Co. v. Foster, 711 So.2d 675 (La. 1998) (examples of supervisory writ practice)