Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State, No. CR-25-0157-PR (August 12, 2026) (J. Beene)  https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2026/CR250157PR.pdf?ver=MLf6c6HI3dfJCYMrboNZQw%3d%3d

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PASTOR AND CO-PASTOR DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A PENITENT/CLERGY PRIVILEGE (A.R.S. § 13-4062) COMMUNICATION UNLESS IT CONSITUTES A PROTECTED  “CONFESSION” WHICH MUST INCLUDE ADMITTING FAULT AND SEEKING SPIRITUAL FORGIVENESS OR GUIDANCE

Defendant Mario Rodriguez-Ramirez was pastor of the Phoenix church he founded. His brother-in-law, Jose Padron, joined him as co-pastor. After allegations were made Rodriquez-Romero had sexually abused Padron's 13-year-old niece, Rodriquez-Romero had a one on one conversation with Padron where he admitted to the abuse and stated “I know it's not right.” Padron secretly and without Rodriquez-Romero's consent, recorded the conversation and shared that recording with the victim's family and some members of the congregation.

Rodriquez-Ramirez was charged with several counts of child sex abuse. Pretrial he sought to suppress the recording under the penitent/clergy privilege. A.R.S. § 13-4062. Rodriquez-Ramirez testified in the trial court's evidentiary hearing on the motion that he was “seeking spiritual guidance” during what he thought was a private conversation.  Because the Maricopa County Superior Court found Padron was not acting in his capacity as a clergy at the time of the communication the motion to suppress was denied.

Rodriquez then brought this special action. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court finding the communication privileged. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted the state's petition for review, affirmed the trial court and reversed the court of appeals.

A.R.S. § 13-4062(3) provides: “ A clergyman or priest [shall not be examined as a witness], without consent of the person making the confession, as to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs.”

State v. Archibeque, 223 Ariz. 231 (App. 2009) established a 3-prong test to be applied in determining if the privilege applies: ““(1) Is the person who received the confession a ‘clergyman or priest'? (2) Was the confession made while the clergyman or priest was acting in his professional capacity? (3) Was the confession made in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs?”  The supreme court here adds a fourth prong: “whether the communication is a ‘confession.'”

The supreme court holds that in defining this fourth prong the court must determine if the “penitent” admitted fault in the communication and sought forgiveness or spiritual guidance.”

The second prong which requires the communication be made to clergy only requires the “clergy” be a priest or clergy under the ecclesiastical framework of the church. He or she need not be ordained.

Regarding the third prong, requiring the clergy be acting in his or her clerical capacity at the time of the communication, it suffices if the alleged “penitent” subjectively believes he or she was acting in that capacity and  the subjective belief is objectively reasonable.

The confession must be made within the discipline, rules, customs and practices of the religious organization.

Finally, the penitent/clergy privilege is subject to implied waiver should the “penitent” engage in a course of conduct inconsistent with observance of the privilege.

Although Rodriguez-Ramirez admitted prior misconduct,

he acknowledged struggling with his attraction to the victim,

Padron discussed the spiritual ramifications of that conduct,

and the conversation concluded with prayer, those circumstances

did not meet the defining characteristics identified in

Doe.  

The superior court reasonably found that the discussion

centered on protecting Rodriguez-Ramirez's reputation, addressing church

administration, and minimizing the legal and practical consequences of the

allegations made against him.  The discussion even turned to the logistics

of Rodriguez-Ramirez's flight from law enforcement, in case Padron's

efforts to dissuade the victim's parents from pursuing charges failed.  The

record contains reasonable evidence supporting those findings, and the

court of appeals therefore erred in declining to defer to them.

In essence, the supreme court found Rodriquez-Ramirez neither sought absolution nor intended the communication be confidential.