Rule 506  Communications to clergy. 
(a)  Definitions.  As used in this rule:



(1)  A "member of the clergy" is a minister,
priest, rabbi, Christian Science practitioner, or other similar functionary of
a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the
communicant.



(2)  A communication is "confidential" if
made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons
present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.



(b)  General rule of privilege.  A person has a
privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a
confidential communication by the person to a member of the clergy in the
latter's professional character as spiritual advisor.



(c)  Who may claim the privilege.  The privilege
may be claimed by the communicant or by the communicant's guardian,
conservator, or personal representative.  The member of the clergy may claim
the privilege on behalf of the communicant.  Authority so to do is presumed in
the absence of evidence to the contrary. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1; am L 1992, c
191, §2(3)]



 



RULE 506 COMMENTARY



 



  This rule is identical with the U.S. Supreme Court proposal
for Rule 506, see Rules of Evidence for U.S. Courts and Magistrates as
promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court, 28 App. U.S. Code Service, App. 6
(1975), except that "accredited Christian Science Practitioner" has
been added to the definition of "clergyman" in subsection (a)(1),
consistent with Uniform Rule of Evidence 505(a)(1).  The rule supersedes a
prior Hawaii statute, Hawaii Rev. Stat. §621-20 (1976) (repealed 1980)
(originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §55; am L 1933, c 45, §1; am L 1972, c
104, §1(n)):



No clergymen of any church or
religious denomination shall, without the consent of the person making the
confidential communication, divulge in any action or proceeding, whether civil
or criminal, any confidential communication made to him in his professional
character according to the uses of the church or religious denomination to
which he belongs.



  The present rule accords generally with the prior statute but
broadens the scope of the privilege slightly in two particulars.  Under the
prior statute the privilege was limited to confidential communications made
"according to the uses of the church or religious denomination to which
[the clergyman] belongs."  There seems no good reason to limit the
privilege in this way so long as confidentiality was intended by the
communicant.  The present rule clarifies that uncertain point, granting the
privilege to all confidential communications made to the clergyman in his
professional capacity as a spiritual adviser.  In addition, the privilege is
extended to cover confidential communications to one who is not a clergyman if
the person making the communication reasonably believes that he is.