Sex-crime Conviction of St. Paul Priest Goes before State Supreme Court Again
By Emily Gurnon
The case of a priest convicted of having sex with a woman he was counseling came before the Minnesota Supreme Court once again Monday. Christopher T. Wenthe, who turns 50 on Tuesday, was assigned to Nativity of Our Lord parish in St. Paul in 2003 when he became sexually involved with a college student who had sought his spiritual advice. She testified at trial that she told the priest about her struggles with an eating disorder and prior sexual abuse and that he agreed to serve as her confessor. She said he exploited her vulnerability and trust in him as a priest. Wenthe countered that the relationship was a friendship that went awry and that the 21-year-old woman was a willing participant. The case has bounced around the courts since Wenthe went to trial in Ramsey County in 2011. A jury convicted him of third-degree criminal sexual conduct because there was sexual penetration "during the course of a meeting in which the (victim) sought or received religious or spiritual advice, aid or comfort from the (clergy member) in private." The jury acquitted him of a separate charge that alleged he had a sexual relationship with the woman from November 2003 to February 2005 while she was receiving religious or spiritual help on an ongoing basis. In 2012, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds that it was based on "evidence that was excessively entangled in matters of religion," in violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state. But the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the conviction. It sent the case back to the appellate court for consideration of other matters. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made errors. It reversed the conviction again. Once again, the state appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case a second time. At issue are these questions: -- Should the trial judge have required the jury to come to a unanimous decision on which of several alleged sexual encounters between Wenthe and the victim was the one in which he gave her religious or spiritual advice? -- Should the trial judge have instructed the jury that Wenthe had to have known of her religious purpose for the meeting and intended to provide religious advice? -- Should the trial judge have allowed the defense to introduce evidence of the victim's sexual history? The state "opened the door" to the sexual history evidence by eliciting testimony from the woman about her virginity and lack of experience, the defense argued. Wenthe also should be allowed to testify on the issue to protect his right to a fair trial, Wenthe's attorney Paul Engh told the justices Monday. The priest would have told the jury that he and the woman talked about her "sexual preferences and pleasures" with previous boyfriends, Engh said. That shows their relationship had changed from priest-penitent to one of lovers, he argued. Justice David Lillehaug criticized the state's questioning of the woman regarding her sexual history. "I'm very troubled by the fact that (the) prosecutor stood up and said, 'This is all we're going to do,' and then proceeded to do much more." Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Peter Marker replied that the information "came up" during the victim's testimony. Regarding the first issue, Justice David Stras said, "I cannot frankly figure out what (the appeals court judges) are saying" in the ruling. "Here, 12 jurors just have to agree that this happened," meaning sexual penetration during a counseling-type meeting. They don't have to decide on a specific date, he said. Lillehaug, however, said that while the statute refers to "a meeting," the state's charge against Wenthe cited a meeting within a several-week time period. Marker replied that the prosecutor in the trial made "only an offhand invitation to the jury to consider other instances," but there was "no chance that the jury considered any other meeting" than the one on Nov. 13, 2003. Four members of the court heard oral arguments Monday. Chief Justice Lori Gildea will participate in the decision but could not attend the arguments, Justice Alan Page said. Justices Wilhelmina Wright and Christopher Dietzen will not participate. The decision will be issued at a later date. Emily Gurnon can be reached at 651-228-5522. Follow her at twitter.com/emilygurnon. Contact: egurnon@pioneerpress.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.