Opinion ID: 1788920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A.R.E. 505(b)

Text: Bonds argues the Trial Court erred by allowing Brown to testify about what he, Bonds, told him about the sexual abuse in violation of the religious privilege of Ark.R.Evid. 505(b). During a pre-trial hearing on Bonds' motion to suppress this testimony, Brown testified he was a minister and associate pastor of Friendship Baptist Church in Clinton. He also owned a small air conditioning business where Bonds had been employed. Thirty days before the allegedly privileged communication, Brown had invited Bonds to attend his church. Although Bonds was not a member, he had attended church there on several occasions. The alleged privileged communication occurred as a result of a phone call Brown made to Bonds. At the time of the call, Bonds worked for Brown. Although Brown had ministered to Bonds once in the past, Brown testified without contradiction that he made the call as Bonds' employer. The Trial Court held the privilege did not apply because Brown was not acting in his capacity as a spiritual advisor. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as spiritual advisor. A.R.E. 505(b). In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Cook v. State, 293 Ark. 103, 732 S.W.2d 462 (1987). The most recent case involving the religious privilege in Arkansas is Magar v. State, 308 Ark. 380, 826 S.W.2d 221 (1992). It was held that the religious privilege was inapplicable despite the-fact that Magar and his minister had several counseling sessions where the minister had agreed to keep any communications confidential. The privilege did not apply because it was an accusatory situation initiated by Reverend Rowe that did not encompass spiritual counseling. There are stronger reasons for refusing to apply the religious privilege in the present case than existed in the Magar case. Brown was Bonds' employer, brother-inlaw, and friend. Brown testified at the suppression hearing that he called Bonds as an employer to determine if Bonds should be fired. There was no evidence of ongoing counseling between Brown and Bonds which Brown agreed to keep confidential. In light of these facts and the Magar decision, we have little difficulty determining that the communication was not made to Brown in his capacity as a spiritual advisor. The Trial Court's decision was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.