Youth Pastor Sentenced to Up to 12 Years for Secretly Video Recording Four Girls

Appeals court: consecutive sentencing was reasonable and didn’t “improperly rely on religious grounds.”

Key point 4-11.1. Clergy who engage in sexual contact with an adult or minor are subject to civil liability on the basis of several legal theories. They also are subject to criminal liability .

A Michigan court acted properly in sentencing a defendant who had been convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior with four minors to two consecutive, rather than concurrent, terms of incarceration.

Background: Youth pastor secretly video recorded four minors

A police investigation revealed that during 2015 and 2017, a youth pastor (the “defendant”) used his iPhone to secretly video record three sisters and another girl as they showered and changed clothes in his home while staying there on vacation. At the time of the first recording, the three sisters were 12, 14, and 16 years old. The other girl was 16.

The defendant had made several recordings of the girls in various stages of undressing. Using his computer, the defendant created more than 144 still images from the videos, enhancing them to better show the girls’ nudity.

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of capturing or distributing images of an unclothed person, and four counts of use of computers to commit a crime. He was sentenced to serve four concurrent sentences of two to five years’ imprisonment for the four convictions of capturing images of an unclothed person. The defendant was also sentenced to four concurrent sentences of four and one-half to seven years’ imprisonment for the four convictions of use of computers to commit a crime. The two sentences were all to be served consecutively.

Concurrent sentences are served simultaneously, whereas consecutive sentences are served back-to-back. The judge’s decision to go with consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences meant the defendant’s total prison term would run from six and one-half to twelve years.

The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial judge’s decision for him to serve his sentences consecutively, rather than concurrently, was unreasonable.

Decision wasn’t unreasonable, didn’t “improperly rely on religious grounds”

The appeals court noted that a trial court has considerable discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. In this case, the trial judge had given a lengthy explanation as to why he imposed consecutive sentences based on the defendant’s “background and the nature of the offenses.” The trial judge reasoned that a consecutive sentence was warranted for the defendant’s abuse of the trusted relationship he had with his victims and their families.

The trial judge additionally concluded that the defendant in general was a danger to society and in particular to people who would place their trust in him. Thus, the appellate court concluded, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by imposing the consecutive sentences and appropriately articulated multiple reasons for his decision.

The defendant also argued that the trial judge impermissibly relied on religious views as the reason for imposing the sentence. At sentencing, the appeals court noted, the trial judge stated:

The Bible speaks to a circumstance like this when our Lord Jesus said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the sea. . . .”

The appeals court responded:

Although this passage references the Bible [it was] merely a reference to defendant’s abuse of his position in the church to exploit his victims. The trial judge’s reference to Jesus’s admonition against causing children to sin is simply an acknowledgement that crimes involving children are generally considered more serious than crimes involving adults and also could have been a reference to defendant’s previous position as the youth pastor for his victims. There is no basis for an inference that the trial judge imposed the consecutive sentences because defendant or the trial judge was Christian. The record shows that the trial judge relied on objective secular factors in deciding to impose the consecutive sentences. . . . Thus, the trial judge did not improperly rely on religious grounds when sentencing defendant.

What this means for churches

This is yet another case illustrating the risks associated with the use of technology by pastors and church leaders in inappropriate and illegal ways. See also “Former Youth Leader Convicted for Attempting to Engage Minors in Sexting.”

For help confronting and managing the many potential risks related to youth ministry, see “Minimizing the Risks of Child Molestation in Churches” and “Defending Youth Ministries from 8 Critical Risks.” To help train staff and volunteers, see Reducing the Risk—available on DVD or through online streaming video. People v. Enciso, 2020 WL 5985069 (Mich. App. 2020).

This content is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. "From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations." Due to the nature of the U.S. legal system, laws and regulations constantly change. The editors encourage readers to carefully search the site for all content related to the topic of interest and consult qualified local counsel to verify the status of specific statutes, laws, regulations, and precedential court holdings.

ajax-loader-largecaret-downcloseHamburger Menuicon_amazonApple PodcastsBio Iconicon_cards_grid_caretChild Abuse Reporting Laws by State IconChurchSalary Iconicon_facebookGoogle Podcastsicon_instagramLegal Library IconLegal Library Iconicon_linkedinLock IconMegaphone IconOnline Learning IconPodcast IconRecent Legal Developments IconRecommended Reading IconRSS IconSubmiticon_select-arrowSpotify IconAlaska State MapAlabama State MapArkansas State MapArizona State MapCalifornia State MapColorado State MapConnecticut State MapWashington DC State MapDelaware State MapFederal MapFlorida State MapGeorgia State MapHawaii State MapIowa State MapIdaho State MapIllinois State MapIndiana State MapKansas State MapKentucky State MapLouisiana State MapMassachusetts State MapMaryland State MapMaine State MapMichigan State MapMinnesota State MapMissouri State MapMississippi State MapMontana State MapMulti State MapNorth Carolina State MapNorth Dakota State MapNebraska State MapNew Hampshire State MapNew Jersey State MapNew Mexico IconNevada State MapNew York State MapOhio State MapOklahoma State MapOregon State MapPennsylvania State MapRhode Island State MapSouth Carolina State MapSouth Dakota State MapTennessee State MapTexas State MapUtah State MapVirginia State MapVermont State MapWashington State MapWisconsin State MapWest Virginia State MapWyoming State IconShopping Cart IconTax Calendar Iconicon_twitteryoutubepauseplay