← Case library
3rd DCAMay 14, 2025Reversed in part, affirmed in part🔬 Novel Issue

Castano v. State

Case No. 3D2022-2081

The Third DCA addressed, as a matter of first impression in Florida, whether the clergy communication privilege under section 90.505 applies when a third-party family member is included in the communication during family counseling. The court held that where a spouse's inclusion in a communication to a pastor was necessary and in furtherance of family counseling, the privilege applies and was not waived, reversing the defendant's sexual-abuse convictions where the pastor's testimony was erroneously admitted. The court affirmed the unrelated domestic-incident convictions, finding the error harmless as to those counts only.

Key facts

  • Defendant Castano was charged with sexual abuse and domestic violence offenses; the trial court admitted testimony from a pastor regarding communications between Castano, his wife, and the pastor during family counseling sessions.
  • Castano claimed the clergy communication privilege under Florida Statute section 90.505 protected those communications, arguing his wife's presence was necessary and in furtherance of family counseling, not a waiver of the privilege.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is an issue of first impression in Florida on how the clergy-communication privilege applies to family or group counseling settings, providing a framework (whether a third party's presence was 'necessary and… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.