Utah Court of Appeals

Can trial counsel be ineffective for failing to assert clergy-penitent privilege? State v. Patterson Explained

2013 UT App 11
No. 20100243-CA
January 10, 2013
Affirmed

Summary

Patterson was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse and lewdness involving his stepdaughter. He argued ineffective assistance when his attorneys advised him not to testify after the prosecution threatened to use his communications with a bishop for impeachment. The court found Patterson waived the clergy-penitent privilege by permitting disclosure of a psychosexual evaluation containing the bishop’s statements to prosecutors.

Analysis

In State v. Patterson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to assert the clergy-penitent privilege when advising a defendant not to testify.

Background and Facts

Patterson was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse and lewdness involving his stepdaughter. After his arrest, Patterson met with his bishop in what he described as a confidential clergy-penitent communication. However, Patterson later provided the bishop’s name as a character reference for a psychosexual evaluation prepared by his defense team. The evaluation included the bishop’s statement that Patterson “told [him] how sorry he was for what he has done.” When prosecutors threatened to use this statement for impeachment if Patterson testified, his attorneys advised him not to take the stand.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert the clergy-penitent privilege under Utah Rule of Evidence 503, which could have prevented the prosecution from using Patterson’s communications with his bishop for impeachment purposes.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found that Patterson had waived the clergy-penitent privilege under Rule 510 by failing to take reasonable precautions against inadvertent disclosure. Specifically, Patterson reviewed the psychosexual evaluation containing the bishop’s statements and consented to its disclosure to the prosecution. The court held that both Patterson and the bishop “fail[ed] to take reasonable precautions against inadvertent disclosure,” constituting waiver under Rule 510(a)(2). Because the privilege was waived, trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to raise it.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the importance of carefully managing privileged communications in criminal defense. Defense attorneys must ensure that any materials referencing privileged communications are thoroughly reviewed before disclosure to avoid inadvertent waiver. The case also demonstrates that ineffective assistance claims will fail when counsel’s alleged deficiency stems from the client’s own waiver of applicable privileges.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Patterson

Citation

2013 UT App 11

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20100243-CA

Date Decided

January 10, 2013

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert clergy-penitent privilege where defendant waived the privilege by consenting to disclosure of psychosexual evaluation containing privileged communications to the prosecution.

Standard of Review

Correctness for legal conclusions following Rule 23B hearing; questions of law for ineffective assistance claims raised for first time on appeal; plain error analysis requiring obvious error and harm

Practice Tip

When preparing psychosexual evaluations that may reference privileged communications, carefully review all statements before agreeing to disclosure to avoid inadvertent waiver of applicable privileges.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Norton

    March 27, 2003

    A mistake of law defense under Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-304(2)(b)(ii) requires reliance on a written interpretation of the law by a court or public servant, and casual oral conversations with a deputy county attorney are insufficient to satisfy this requirement.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Mens Rea and Criminal Intent
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Kirkham v. McConkie

    June 1, 2018

    Expert testimony is required in legal malpractice cases involving complex allegations where the attorney’s conduct and applicable standard of care are beyond the common knowledge of average jurors.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.