The devil made me do it
Last Friday, in Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Shubert, the Supreme Court of Texas overturned a jury award of $300,000 damages to a girl who claimed she was subjected to an exorcism against her will. There were minimal physical injuries, some cuts and bruises, but the damages were based on emotional distress, which the Court held are not compensable in this type of case.
The Court essentially said that the religious nature of the claim could not be separated from the secular portion of the claim, and that the courts could not decide religious questions:
We have previously said that adjudication of this type of claim “would necessarily require an inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs that is forbidden by the Constitution.” This type of intangible, psychological injury, without more, cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for a tort claim against a church or its members for its religious practices.
The flip side of this argument, as expressed by Eugene Volokh, is that the religious question can be separated from the tort itself and the damages that flow from it:
The plaintiff alleges -- and the jury apparently believed her -- that she was held down against her will. That's false imprisonment and assault. She also alleges that this physical restraint led to emotional distress damages. This is not a case such as many of the ones the majority cites, in which the emotional distress stemmed from religious speech, or shunning by the community, or other such conduct that is and should be substantively constitutionally protected. Rather, the case involves nonconsensual (or so the jury found) physical touching, conduct that no constitutional guarantee protects.
What is fascinating to me is the dilemma that this type of issue can create in a criminal case. If the Court's holding is that "an inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs . . . is forbidden by the Constitution," what happens when a person is charged with a crime and the truth or falsity of their religious beliefs goes to the heart of their defense?
Historically, the case that has generated the most attention and controversy would be that of Annelise Michel, who died following a series of exorcisms in Bavaria that were sanctioned by the Catholic Church and spanned a 10 month period. The case was immortalized in the movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," which, although not entirely accurate, was thought provoking and an excellent courtroom drama.
Annelise's parents, a priest, and a pastor were prosecuted for negligent homicide for failing to call a medical doctor during the exorcisms. At their trial in 1978, the parents' attorney Erich Schmidt-Leichner argued that:
the exorcism was legal and that the German Constitution protected citizens in the unrestricted exercise of their religious beliefs. The defense played tapes recorded at the exorcism sessions, sometimes featuring what was claimed to be "demons arguing", as proof that Anneliese was indeed possessed. Both priests presented their deeply held conviction that she was possessed, and that she was finally freed by exorcism just before she died. ( wikipedia.org)
What is the result where an individual is believed to be possessed and a homicide results, either by the person who is possessed or by another individual who believes the victim was possessed? The defendant is entitled to present his defense, and that defense might consist of testimony regarding the truth or falsity of religious beliefs, which may be very relevant as to the defendant's subjective state of mind at the time of the incident and intent to commit a crime, as well as any state or defense testimony regarding psychiatric diagnoses.
If an inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs is forbidden by the Constitution, will the Courts then exclude the defendant's belief as to the truth or falsity of religious beliefs that are central to his defense? I believe that the defendant's right to present a defense would take priority under the Constitution in this situation. Religious beliefs are a valid defense to varying degrees when it involves issues such as refusal of medical treatment or childrearing practices, and yet I wonder if testimony regarding demonic possession or the practice of Voodoo may be denied by a trial court or not even considered by the attorneys.
After watching the movie and reading about the story of Annelise Michel, I have had this discussion with lawyers, and surprisingly found that many, due to their own religious beliefs, would refuse to even consider presenting defenses that involve demonic possession, or the practice of Voodoo, which arises occasionally in South Carolina. Some refuse to even discuss it. I believe that no matter what our personal beliefs, we have a duty to present any defense that is available to a client and these scenarios, although rare, have a direct bearing on the defendant's intent to commit a crime.
