## Facts

- Jewelry was stolen in New York City.
- Rev. Anthony Kohlmann, a Catholic priest and rector of a New York City Catholic church, came into possession of some of the stolen property and returned it to its owner.
- When police questioned Kohlmann about where he obtained the property, he refused to answer, stating that he learned the information while acting as a priest during the sacrament of confession.
- Based on other information, the People of the State of New York charged Daniel Philips and his wife, Mary Philips, with receiving stolen goods.
- At trial, the district attorney sought to question Kohlmann about the source of the stolen property and the facts he learned in connection with the confession, including information that could identify the penitent.
- Kohlmann maintained that under the canons and duties of his church he was bound to absolute secrecy regarding confessional communications and could not reveal what he learned in confession, even in court.
- The prosecution argued that Kohlmann had no constitutional right to refuse to answer and that excusing him from testifying would amount to an unconstitutional preference for his religion, especially where the evidence related to public safety and criminal justice.

## Issues

1. Whether, consistent with New York’s constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and applicable common-law principles, a Catholic priest may be compelled to testify about information learned in sacramental confession, including the identity of the penitent or the source of returned stolen property.
2. Whether enforcing compulsory process against a priest in these circumstances would unlawfully interfere with a religious ordinance for which secrecy is required.
3. Whether generalized claims about the public interest in prosecuting crime justify requiring disclosure of confessional communications.

## Decision

- The New York City Court of General Sessions held that Kohlmann could not be compelled to disclose communications made to him in sacramental confession, including information that would reveal the penitent.
- The court treated the seal of confession as essential to the Catholic sacrament of penance and reasoned that forcing disclosure would effectively eliminate that ordinance by deterring confession and preventing priests from receiving confessions.
- The court rejected the argument that recognizing this protection created an improper preference for Catholicism, reasoning that the constitutional commitment to religious liberty protects religious ordinances and is not limited to the practices of any single denomination.
- The court declined to override confessional secrecy based on broad appeals to public safety without a clear showing that compelled disclosure was necessary.

## Legal Principles

- Religious liberty protects not only beliefs but also religious ordinances and ceremonies; civil authority may not, through evidentiary compulsion, effectively prevent a faith from carrying out a core sacrament.
- In the American constitutional order, religion is a matter between God and the individual, and the state is not to control religious essentials through ordinary rules of proof when doing so would destroy a religious practice.
- Because secrecy is essential to the sacrament of penance, compelling a priest to disclose confessional communications would, in practical effect, abolish the sacrament by removing the assurance of confidentiality.
- Equal religious liberty means courts should not protect the religious practices familiar to one tradition while disabling the rites of another through compelled testimony.
- Claims that disclosure serves public safety do not, standing alone, justify forcing clergy to violate conscience and church law; a strong and clearly demonstrated necessity is required before the state may demand testimony that would destroy a protected religious ordinance.
- Common-law respect for conscience-based limits on compelled testimony supports treating sacramental confession as outside the reach of ordinary compulsion in criminal proceedings.

## Conclusion

In *People v. Philips* (June 14, 1813), the New York City Court of General Sessions ruled that a Catholic priest could not be forced to testify about information learned in sacramental confession during a prosecution for receiving stolen goods. The court reasoned that secrecy is essential to the sacrament of penance and that compelled disclosure would effectively nullify a protected religious ordinance, contrary to constitutional religious liberty and conscience-based limits recognized in the law of evidence.


People v. Philips, June 14, 1813