Too Much Evidence About Church Doctrine Gets Priest Convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct a New Trial

State v. Wenthe, Minn.Ct.App., 11/26/2012.  Mr. Wenthe is or was a Catholic priest who began to hear A.F.’s confessions.  They became friends, then lovers.  This went on for about a year.  A.F. eventually reported the sexual liaison to church officials and then to the police.  The state charged Mr. Wenthe with two counts of criminal sexual conduct.  They charged one continuing count that alleged that the sex occurred while A.F. was meeting with Mr. Wenthe on an ongoing basis for spiritual counsel; and they charged a second count that alleged that the sex occurred on a single occasion in which A.F. sought or received spiritual counsel.  The jury acquitted him of the former and convicted him of the later.

Before trial, Mr. Wenthe moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the “clergy sexual conduct” statute was unconstitutional on its face.  The trial court denied this motion.  Mr. Wenthe also moved in limine to prevent the state from adducing evidence of Catholic doctrine.  The state said they wouldn’t do that but they did anyway.

The court of appeals rejects the facial challenge to the statute.  A previous opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court, a 3-3 tie, State v. Bussmann, 741 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 2007) had affirmed the determination of the court of appeals that the statue was not facially unconstitutional.  That was enough precedent to dispose of the facial challenge.

Bussmann had, however, been reversed on an “as applied” claim because the conviction had been based on extensive evidence regarding church doctrine.  The same thing happened here to Mr. Wenthe:

Somewhat like what occurred in Bussmann, and despite the state’s assurances that it would not present evidence on religious doctrine, the following evidence was presented and received in this case: (i) evidence regarding the power imbalance between priests and parishioners, stemming from priests’ religious authority; (ii) the Roman Catholic Church’s official policies regarding pastoral care; (iii) the church’s doctrines and concerns about sexual conduct involving priests; (iv) the church’s response to the allegations of appellant’s misconduct; and (v) the religious training appellant received.

The court of appeals concludes that all this religious evidence was excessive, and that the result was to invite the jury “to determine [Mr. Wenthe’s] guilt on the basis of his violation of Roman Catholic doctrine, his breaking of the priestly vows of celibacy, and his abuse of the spiritual authority bestowed on Roman Catholic priests.”  Can’s do that.  Mr. Wenthe gets a new trial.