Court Rejects Establishment Clause Challenge to “Clergy Sexual Conduct” Statute

State v. Wenthe, Minn.S.Ct., 11/6/2013.  This is the “clergy sexual conduct” case in which Mr. Wenthe made both a facial and an as applied constitutional challenge to the statute.  The court of appeals had reversed the conviction, read here for a factual summary and that court’s assessment.  They had done so because the state, despite promises not to do so, had introduced a lot of evidence regarding church doctrine.  The court of appeals concluded that all this evidence invited the jury to convict Mr. Wenthe on the basis of his violation of church doctrine rather than violation of the criminal law.  This amounted to an “as applied” violation of the Establishment Clause.

Chief Justice Gildea reverses the court of appeals, rejecting both facial and as applied challenges.  The court returns the case back to the court of appeals to take up various other trial errors that the court of appeals had not addressed. 

Justices Dietzen and Wright took no part.  Justice G. Barry Anderson concurred in the opinion in order to write about the state’s apparent violation of the agreement not to introduce a bunch of evidence – indeed, the parties had agreed to “stay totally away from” – about church doctrine.  Justice Page dissented, reminding everyone that in the previous Opinion on this subject, State v. Bussmann, 741 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 2007) he had concluded that the statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied.  And he still thought so.