In Campbell v. State of Texas, (TX Ct. Cr. App., Sept. 17, 2026), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest court for criminal cases) refused to grant review in a case posing the question of which state's rule on clergy-communicant privilege applies when the communication takes place in a different state from the one in which defendant is being tried. The majority did not issue an opinion along with its order denying review. However, Judge Yeary filed a dissenting opinion explaining the case and urging review. He said in part:
Appellant was charged, in Harris County, Texas, with murdering his girlfriend. His girlfriend was killed in Texas. And then Appellant went to his mother's home in North Carolina.
While he was in North Carolina, Appellant's mother urged Appellant to speak with a bishop on the telephone. While he was on the phone with the bishop, and allegedly with his mother still in the room, Appellant made a statement admitting that he killed his girlfriend. During trial, the bishop was called to testify as a witness about the contents of Appellant's statement.
Appellant had asked the trial court to suppress the statements he made to the bishop in accordance with our Texas Rule of Evidence addressing the clergy-communicant privilege. But the trial court overruled his motion. The bishop's testimony about Appellant's statements was admitted into evidence at Appellant's trial and he was ultimately convicted. The First Court of Appeals then affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the bishop's testimony, concluding that the North Carolina clergy-communicant privilege applies, rather than the Texas rule....
The Restatement urges state courts to use the "most significant relationship test" when determining which state's law applies. However, the Restatement is not the law of this state....
Applying a different state's law or rule can have a massive impact on the outcome of cases.... In this case, Appellant's mother appears to have been present during the call between Appellant and the bishop when Appellant made the statements at issue. Under Texas Rule of Evidence Rule 505(a)(3), Appellant's mother's presence might not serve to preclude Appellant from asserting the clergy-communicant privilege. It is therefore conceivable that, if the Texas Rule had been applied, Appellant might have been able to prevent the bishop from testifying....
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
