Arizona Supreme Court Ruling on Mormon Church: Clergy Privilege

The phrase “Arizona Supreme Court Mormon Church ruling on clergy privilege” usually points to one of two decisions, and they reached opposite-feeling results. In 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court sided with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on a narrow discovery question, holding that certain confessional records from a child sexual abuse case were shielded by the clergy-penitent privilege. In July 2025, the Arizona Court of Appeals went the other direction on the underlying lawsuit, reversing a summary judgment for the church and ruling that a jury must decide whether the bishops had a legal duty to report the abuse. The case now heads back for trial, with the church seeking further review from the state Supreme Court.

The Two Rulings People Mix Up

The litigation grew out of a 2021 lawsuit filed in Cochise County Superior Court by two children, identified as Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II, against the church and several of its representatives. Their father, Paul Adams, had confessed in November 2011 to his bishop in Bisbee, Dr. Herrod, that he was sexually abusing his daughter. Herrod called the church’s abuse helpline in Salt Lake City, counseled Adams to repent and to report himself, urged his wife Leizza to report, and later participated in a disciplinary process that led to Adams’s excommunication in 2013. No one reported the abuse to civil authorities. It continued for years, extended to a second child, and ended only when law enforcement discovered a video Adams had posted online in February 2017.¹

During discovery, a dispute arose over whether the church had to produce confidential records tied to Adams’s confession. That question reached the Arizona Supreme Court, which in 2023 ruled for the church and found the specific confessional communications protected from disclosure. That is the ruling most commonly associated with the search phrase, and it is often misread as resolving the whole case. It did not. It answered a document-production question, not the question of whether the bishops had to pick up the phone and call police.

The Cochise County Superior Court later granted summary judgment to the church on the merits, dismissing the lawsuit without a trial on the theory that the clergy exemption shielded the bishops’ decision not to report. That is the ruling the Court of Appeals, Division Two, reversed on July 29, 2025.¹

What Arizona’s Clergy Reporting Exemption Actually Says

Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3620 requires certain people, including clergy, to immediately report suspected child abuse to law enforcement or the Department of Child Safety. Clergy sit on that mandatory-reporter list alongside physicians, nurses, teachers, peace officers, and social workers.²

The same statute carves out a conditional exemption. A clergy member may withhold a report if the information came in the course of religious discipline and the clergy member determines that keeping it confidential is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.” The exemption has a hard limit: it covers only the confession itself, not anything the clergy member personally observes about the child or the surrounding circumstances.²

A separate testimonial privilege runs in parallel. Under A.R.S. § 13-4062, a clergyman cannot be compelled to testify in a criminal case about a confession made in his professional role without the consent of the person who confessed.³ A matching civil privilege sits in A.R.S. § 12-2233. Those privileges block compelled courtroom testimony. The reporting exemption governs whether clergy must proactively contact authorities. The Court of Appeals noted that the reporting exemption does not create any independent privilege beyond what those statutes already provide.¹

Why the Court of Appeals Said the Exemption Didn’t Clearly Apply

The appellate court identified three distinct factual problems with the church’s reliance on the exemption. Any one of them could allow a jury to find for the plaintiffs.

Personal Observations Aren’t Protected

After Adams’s initial confession to Bishop Herrod, Herrod asked Leizza, Adams’s wife, to join them. Adams then repeated the confession in her presence. The Court of Appeals observed that a reasonable jury could conclude Herrod did not “receive” a second confession in that moment. He witnessed a conversation between a husband and his wife. Because the statutory exemption explicitly excludes a clergy member’s personal observations, anything Herrod learned from watching that exchange could fall outside the exemption’s protection.¹

Adams May Have Waived the Privilege

The underlying testimonial privilege belongs to the person who made the confession and can be waived through conduct inconsistent with keeping the matter confidential. Adams confessed in front of his wife, a non-clergy member. He later participated in a church disciplinary council where the abuse was discussed in front of multiple people, some clergy and some lay. The Court of Appeals held that a jury could reasonably find he abandoned confidentiality through those actions, which would strip away the privilege altogether.¹

The Church’s Own Handbook Said to Report

This is the piece of the ruling that cuts hardest. Section 32.4.4 of the church’s General Handbook instructs bishops and stake presidents that when “disclosure is necessary to prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury and there is not time to seek guidance,” the “duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality” and “leaders should contact civil authorities immediately.” The statutory exemption asks whether confidentiality was “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.” If the religion’s own written guidance told the bishops to report when children were in danger, a jury could find the bishops had no legitimate religious basis for staying silent.¹

That “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion” language is the hinge of the whole exemption. It is not a blanket shield. It requires a judgment call, and the judgment must line up with the religion’s own teachings.

Who Controls the Privilege

Arizona’s civil testimonial privilege places control in the hands of the person who confessed: a clergyman cannot be compelled to testify “without the consent of the person making” the confession.³ The reporting exemption, by contrast, assigns the decision to the clergy member, who “may withhold reporting” if confidentiality is reasonable and necessary within the religion.² The two work together. When the confessor’s own conduct waives confidentiality, as the Court of Appeals suggested Adams’s conduct may have done, the clergy member loses the foundation for withholding a report.

Where the Case Stands Now

The July 2025 ruling did not decide that the church is liable. It decided that the question is close enough to go to a jury. The case has been remanded to Cochise County Superior Court for trial, where jurors will weigh whether Adams waived the privilege, whether the bishops’ knowledge extended beyond protected confessions, and whether staying silent was truly consistent with the church’s own religious teachings.¹

The church has asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision. If the Supreme Court takes the case, its ruling could set a definitive standard for how the clergy exemption works in Arizona, with consequences for every religious institution operating in the state. If it declines, the trial moves forward under the framework the Court of Appeals set.