Court Opinion

ID: 9765812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:20:44.748821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:15.952091
License: Public Domain

BENHAM, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because I believe the trial court’s admission of appellant’s custodial statements was erroneous.
1. This case is no different than Robinson v. State, 286 Ga. 42 (684 SE2d 863) (2009). In that case, after being read his Miranda rights, the defendant responded to questioning as follows:
Detective: Knowing these rights that I just advised you, do you wish to speak to me without an attorney present? Robinson: Uhm, yeah, I would like a lawyer.
This Court determined that, despite the words “uhm yeah,” a seemingly affirmative response to the leading question asked, the defendant had invoked his right to counsel. Accordingly, the State was barred from using the defendant’s custodial statement during its case-in-chief.
The facts of this case are nearly identical to Robinson. At the start of appellant’s audio-recorded custodial interview, the following exchange took place between appellant and the police detective:
Detective: This is saying that I advised you of your rights and you know what your rights are and you’re going to talk to me. Okay?
Willis: Uhm —
Detective: That’s all that says.
Willis: I don’t have a problem answering any questions, but I still (inaudible), though, if I can.
Detective: You want an attorney before you talk to us?
Willis: No. I’m saying I don’t have any problem answering any questions, but I still do want an attorney.
Although appellant uttered the word “no,” in a seemingly negative response to the leading question asked, he stated in the very next breath that he wanted an attorney. Since the word “no” was *710immediately followed by appellant’s unequivocal statement that “I still do want an attorney,” the word “no” was a filler word that does not obfuscate the clear request for counsel. In fact the word “no” can reasonably be understood as negating the assumptions made by the officer in her question and clearing the way for appellant to clearly communicate his request for representation. He states that he wants to cooperate, but otherwise uses no qualifiers or equivocal words regarding his request. See Robinson, supra, 286 Ga. at 44 (the defendant did not use any equivocal words such as “might” or “maybe”). The fact that appellant stated a willingness to cooperate in any police questioning did not negate his request for a lawyer. See Manley v. State, 287 Ga. 338 (7) (698 SE2d 301) (2010). Nor did his statement indicate that he wished for a lawyer in the future. Id. At the moment appellant uttered “I still do want an attorney,” the detective should have ceased all questioning until an attorney could be hired or appointed for appellant. Robinson, 286 Ga. at 44-45.
The majority mentions in a footnote that Robinson and Manley are distinguishable from the instant case, but fails to provide an explanation for that conclusion. In fact, the cases are not distinguishable. In this case and in Robinson, the facts at issue are nearly identical: both defendants were asked leading questions by police asking them whether they wanted an attorney before speaking to authorities; both defendants said they wanted a lawyer; and neither defendant mentioned any qualifiers as to when the lawyer should be appointed. Like the defendant in Manley, appellant stated a willingness to cooperate with police and also his desire for counsel. In both Robinson and Manley, this Court determined that the defendants had invoked their rights to counsel. There is no basis for this Court to depart from precedent7 and, accordingly I would reverse.
2. Three days after his custodial interview, appellant asked to speak with the jailhouse chaplain8 in order to seek spiritual guidance. The two spoke in a private room for about thirty minutes when appellant advised the chaplain he wanted to confess. The chaplain told appellant he did not “do confessions” and that appellant had to confess to the “proper authorities.”9 The chaplain left the room, told *711a police sergeant that appellant wanted to confess, and returned to the room with the sergeant. The sergeant asked appellant if he was sure he wanted to “do this,” appellant nodded, and the sergeant retrieved a pen and paper. Appellant wrote out his confession, handed it to the chaplain, and the chaplain handed it to the sergeant who was standing in the doorway. In the document, appellant wrote, “My misfortunate journey began . .. the day I lost touch with my savior,” and ended with “I saw a church near eastpoint [sic] and something said stop running.” At the motion to suppress hearing, the chaplain testified that it was his understanding that appellant was making the confession as an act to clear his conscience for prayer:
Defense counsel: And [appellant] indicated to you that he wanted to confess to you everything he had done for the purpose of clearing his conscience and praying about it? Chaplain: Yes.
There was no other stated purpose for the confession.
OCGA § 24-9-22 provides:
Every communication made by any person professing religious faith, seeking spiritual comfort, or seeking counseling to any Protestant minister of the Gospel, any priest of the Roman Catholic faith, any priest of the Greek Orthodox Catholic faith, any Jewish rabbi, or to any Christian or Jewish minister, by whatever name called, shall be deemed privileged. No such minister, priest, or rabbi shall disclose any communications made to him by any such person professing religious faith, seeking spiritual guidance, or seeking counseling, nor shall such minister, priest, or rabbi be competent or compellable to testify with reference to any such communication in any court.
Under this statute, any communication to a member of the clergy that is for the express purpose of seeking and receiving spiritual comfort, guidance or counseling is privileged. Alternative Health Care Systems v. McCown, 237 Ga. App. 355 (5) (514 SE2d 691) (1999) (trial court properly excluded a hospice chaplain from testifying at trial in a dispute concerning whether the decedent’s wife consented to organ donation). It is undisputed that appellant sought out the chaplain to receive spiritual guidance. When appellant confided to the chaplain that he wanted to confess, the chaplain was barred by OCGA § 24-9-22 from disclosing to anyone, including the “proper authorities,” any communication between himself and appellant. *712While the chaplain was not required to “do confessions,” the statute expressly prohibited him from disclosing to anyone that appellant said he wanted to confess. Id. See also State v. Jackson, 77 N.C. App. 832 (336 SE2d 437) (1985) (trial court erred when it allowed a pastor to testify as to comments made by defendant while receiving spiritual counseling). Therefore, the majority opinion misses the mark when it states that the “chaplain did not disclose the confession to police.” By bringing the police sergeant into the discussion concerning appellant’s desire to confess, the chaplain abandoned his role as a neutral spiritual counselor and became a conduit of the police. Had the chaplain simply informed appellant that he did not “do confessions” and left the conversation as it was or continued with providing spiritual counseling to defendant, no violation of the privilege would have occurred. Thus, the trial court erred when it determined the privilege had not been violated.
Decided June 28, 2010
Reconsideration denied July 26, 2010.
Gregory A. Hicks, for appellant.
Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Christopher R. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Dana J. Norman, John R. Edwards, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Appellant never sought to waive the privilege; rather, the chaplain conditioned further spiritual guidance upon appellant making a confession to the “proper authorities.” Since appellant had confessed to the authorities only three days earlier, it strains credulity that appellant intended to confess once again to police. Appellant’s confession at this stage was simply to comply with the chaplain’s instruction that he had to confess to the “proper authorities” in order to clear appellant’s conscience for prayer. Indeed, with its references to a “savior” and “church,” appellant’s written confession indicates that appellant was in fact still seeking spiritual guidance and not further communication with authorities. The clergy privilege was violated in this case and the taint from that violation rendered the written statement inadmissible at trial. Accordingly, I would reverse.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hunstein and Justice Hines join in this dissent.

 Rather than following this Court’s precedent in Robinson and Manley, decided in 2009 and 2010, respectively, the majority relies on a 2007 Georgia Court of Appeals decision (Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. App. 41 (656 SE2d 200) (2007)) to uphold its conclusion. Johnson is distinguishable from this case because in that case the defendant told authorities that he could wait until the interrogation was done to call for an attorney. No such statement was made by appellant in this case.

 The chaplain was an independent contractor paid by the sheriffs department to provide spiritual guidance to detainees.

 The chaplain had no knowledge that appellant had already made a statement to authorities admitting to the crimes in question.