Opinion ID: 1175427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: privileged conversation with the minister

Text: The majority holds that because other persons were in close proximity to the minister and Hedger, his statement was not privileged. Hedger stated that he could not live without [ex-wife] Donna, that if he couldn't have Donna neither could anyone else. Tr., Vol. II, at 242. A reasonable juror could conclude that such a statement provides a motive. It is prejudicial and highly damaging, but inadmissible under I.R.E. 505. Idaho Rule of Evidence 505, the religious privilege, provides in part: Confidential communication. A communication is `confidential' if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication. (Emphasis added.) The majority of necessity interprets the rule too broadly. In my view a statement can be made privately and not intended for further disclosure when other people are around. Otherwise the whisperings of Ollie North to defense counsel Brendan Sullivan at the Iran-Contra pretrial hearings would not be protected by the attorney-client privilege.