Opinion ID: 1302230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Penitential Communication Privilege

Text: Spry argues for the first time on appeal that his statements to Reverend Zoerita Fultz should have been excluded under the penitential communication privilege, K.S.A. 60-429(b). Chaffee had worked as a secretary for Zoerita Fultz, a minister with the Church of God and the associate pastor of the church Chaffee attended. Fultz had counseled Spry and Chaffee individually and jointly several times. On August 9 Spry came by the church looking for Rev. Fultz' husband. Spry said he needed to talk to Mr. Fultz. Rev. Fultz told Spry her husband was not there, but asked if she could help. Spry told her that he was angry because he found out Chaffee was seeing someone else and he felt betrayed. He said that he was afraid because he was going to be be hurting somebody that he deeply loved and he didn't want to do that. Spry claims these statements should have been excluded under K.S.A. 60-429(b). Admitting there was no objection to the testimony, Spry argues we should take up the issue under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4627(2) (authorizing notice of unassigned errors if the interests of justice would be served thereby). Spry did not assert the privilege during the trial. We have no record of the context of the conversation in terms of whether Spry intended that the conversation be kept secret. Spry was looking for Rev. Fultz' husband, but spoke to the Reverend because her husband was not there. Rev. Fultz told Spry he needed professional help, and there was nothing she could do for him. There is no indication that Spry wanted the conversation to be kept secret. Rev. Fultz testified that she did not consider the communication privileged. She said on cross-examination, I'm a little concerned here about confidentiality. It wasn't aa counseling session in the sense that he was coming to me for counseling. George waswas frightened and he was looking for my husband. Our obligation under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4627 in a hard 40 case (to consider all errors asserted in the appeal even though a proper objection was not made below) does not require us to become finders of fact or to make a determination upon which no record exists. State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 653, 932 P.2d 964 (1997). The absence of a record to review the context of the communication, coupled with Spry's failure to invoke the privilege, controls. Spry's privilege claim lacks merit.