United Pentecostal Pastor Dannie Hood’s Refusal To Testify

Dannie Ray Hood became the senior pastor of Landmark Tabernacle-The Pentecostals of Denver in 2012. Landmark is located at 2727 S. Sheridan Blvd. in Denver and is part of Section Three of the Colorado District of the United Pentecostal Church. In 1990 Dannie obtained a general license in Tennessee and in 2009 he became ordained in Colorado, during the time Billy Hale was the District Superintendent. (The United Pentecostal Church has three levels of licensing: local, general and ordained.) Landmark Tabernacle formed in 1977 under the leadership of Billy and Brenda Hale and is a legally affiliated UPCI church. (Any church whose pastor is licensed by the UPCI is considered a UPCI church. They can go a step further and have a legal affiliation with the organization.) Hood is married to Lori, a daughter of the Hales, thus keeping the church in the family as Billy Hale is now considered the bishop. Hood has also operated the non-profit corporation called Dannie Hood Ministries Inc.

On November 10, 2016, 21 year old Jesse Allen Klockenbrink, a member of Landmark Tabernacle, was arrested. The complaint was: “Between and including approximately July 11, 2014 and July 11, 2015, JESSE A KLOCKENBRINK unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly inflicted sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on [name redacted] causing submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against victim’s will; in violation of section 18-3-402(1)(a), C.R.S.” Jesse Klockenbrink, born June 30, 1995, is now serving time in prison after being convicted following a court trial in August 2018.  This is case 16CR07464. There will be further details at a later date.

It has come to my attention since first learning of this case, that at the time it was reported to the police, it is alleged that Klockenbrink was already in the process of going through court ordered classes in an unrelated separate case. This was not able to be brought up at trial. Subsequent to this 2016 case, Jesse Klockenbrink was charged again in February 2019, with an additional sexual assault charge for crimes that occurred between the dates of July 10, 2010 and June 29, 2013 when he was 15 to 17 years of age (just one day shy of 18). His victim was four years younger. This case, 2019CR15046, is presently going through the court system, with a hearing scheduled for June 10, 2019. It appears that Jesse Klockenbrink will be taking a plea offer, thus avoiding another trial.

This is part 22 of an ongoing series.

On the flip side, if you fail to report suspected child abuse or neglect, you’ve committed a criminal offense, according to the Texas DFPS. That’s particularly true for professionals such as teachers, medical personnel or day-care employees who come into contact with children during the course of their job.
Time is of the essence because evidence of abuse can disappear or be muddied as days pass, the Texas DFPS indicates on its website. A bruise may heal and memories may fade before investigators can take note of them. – Editorial: How to report suspected child sex abuse

Are you aware that in Colorado, clergy members are mandatory reporters? In Colorado under State law C.R.S.19-3-304, there are many professionals who are required by law to report child abuse. However, unlike Texas and some other states, Colorado law also says that this doesn’t apply if clergy privilege is in play, according to C.R.S. 13-90-107 (1) (c), which covers who may not testify without consent. [“A clergy member, minister, priest, or rabbi shall not be examined without both his or her consent and also the consent of the person making the confidential communication as to any confidential communication made to him or her in his or her professional capacity in the course of discipline expected by the religious body to which he or she belongs.”] In other words, the person speaking with the minister could give their consent but the minister could still refuse to testify. Clergy privilege is what United Pentecostal Church pastor Dannie Hood claimed in June 2018 to avoid testifying about Jesse Klockenbrink, a sexual offender of at least one child in the church. In a PDF file we have provided the two court documents filed by Dannie Hood’s attorney so you may view them for yourself.

Please note the key words of ‘in the course of discipline’ used in this section of the law as you will see Dannie Hood claimed this in his petition to quash the prosecutor’s subpoena to testify. Discipline in this sense means the tenets or traditions of the religion. Let’s consider some questions:

• Do the by-laws of Landmark Tabernacle address this issue?
• Do the by-laws/constitution of the United Pentecostal Church address it?
• Something else to determine is whether a confession was made under the seal of confidentiality or if it was given less formally.

I have no knowledge of the by-laws of Landmark Tabernacle. While the UPCI Manual has a position paper on ministerial ethics and states, “I will hold as sacred all confidences shared with me,” it’s made clear that the policies listed therein are “not laws to govern but principles to guide.” However, under Article VII, Section 8 and #32 it states, “When a minister receives information that is a privileged communication, the minister shall not divulge or repeat any part of such communication to any other person unless compelled to do so by law or if the communicant waives the privilege. Privileged communication shall be defined as any confession or communication made to a minister in confidence by a person seeking spiritual advice or consolation and who expects that such information will not be divulged by the minister to another person.” [ screen shot Quote is taken from the 2019 edition of the Manual.]

On the other hand, David Bernard [the leader of the UPCI] writes in his book, Spiritual Leadership in the Twenty-first Century, “Child Abuse is a particularly sensitive area. Of course, the church should do its utmost to protect children. Failing to protect children can cause lasting harm to them as well as adverse publicity and great legal liability. Generally, ministers don’t have a right to privileged communications when child abuse is involved. Many states require ministers, teachers, counselors, or the general public to report cases of suspected or confessed child abuse. There can be both criminal and civil liability for failure to do so. Of course, there is an even greater ethical obligation to prevent ongoing and future harm, which generally means the abuser must be held accountable by proper authorities. Church leaders should know the law of their state, including what to report and to whom they should report.” [emphasis is mine]

When a person tells a member of the clergy something in confidence, they are sharing a matter which is private or secret and it is expected that the clergy will not tell anyone else. According to court documents, Dannie Hood had communication with the parents of the victim, the victim, and Jesse Klockenbrink. He did not speak to the victim without one or both of her parents present. He claims all of these talks were confidential and were conducted in his capacity as the senior pastor of Landmark. In the document submitted by his attorney, Hood states that he “reasonably believed no party ever gave him permission to speak about the confidential conversations.” Please note that he does not claim that any of the parties explicitly stated that they were speaking to him in confidence. It goes on to say, “Witness Dannie Hood does not consent to testify about any confidential communication with any witness in this case.” [emphasis is mine] He lists the victim, the victim’s parents and Jesse Klockenbrink as these witnesses.

While it is understandable that Klockenbrink may not have ever consented to allow Dannie Hood to say anything (was he even asked?), wouldn’t the victim or the victim’s parents have consented? Since it was the prosecution that wanted to call Hood as a witness, surely the family would have consented to him doing so. Yet because Hood would not consent, he was allowed by Colorado law to not testify. The law states that “a clergy member…shall not be examined without both his or her consent and also the consent” of the other party. What happened here was that not only did Dannie Hood refuse to testify against Jesse Klockenbrink, but he also refused to testify in support of the victim and her family. He could have easily testified about his interaction with the family and not brought into it anything that he later discussed with Klockenbrink. He chose to not consent; it was not forced upon him, nor required of him by law or UPCI discipline when it came to the victim. While Hood claimed that he “reasonably believed no party ever gave him permission to speak about the confidential conversations,” it is alleged that the victim’s family did indeed consent to him testifying about their communications.

In Dannie Hood’s refusal to testify, it is interesting that Preston Klockenbrink, Jesse’s older brother and a yet unlicensed minister at Landmark Tabernacle, posted this publicly on December 8, 2018 on his Facebook timeline: “Recently there has been some things posted on Facebook in regards to Jesse Klockenbrink my brother. This has come to my attention from many of you. We do not wish for any conflict. We hope for restoration, truth, peace and unity. If anyone should have questions. Pastor Hood or I could answer any questions you have. However most importantly I’d like to direct your attention to scripture and would pray you would talk to our Pastor before you make a decision.” [screen shot] Now one must ask, why would Hood “answer any questions” about the situation when he steadfastly refused to testify in court and claimed everything said to him was in confidence? What could he possibly tell members of the church, or others, that he wouldn’t tell the court or the detective that had investigated the case? (Yes, he also refused to share with the detective what happened in his meetings with the ‘witnesses.’ screen shot from affidavit ) Why would anyone need to discuss the case with the pastor, a case that that had already been settled in court with a guilty verdict, before making a decision apparently about what to believe regarding Jesse Klockenbrink? Court records show Preston attended a meeting with his brother and the victim’s father where Jesse Klockenbrink made an apology. This occurred before the case was reported to the police. There are many questions which beg an answer.

It should also be noted that Dannie Hood’s adult son, Adrian, is a friend of Jesse Klockenbrink, even speaking on his behalf during the sentencing phase of the court case.

In practice, these provisions mean that a clergy member does not need to report their “reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect” unless they obtain this information from a source other than a confidential communication. Conversations where a person is speaking with a pastor or clergy for spiritual advice or counseling in a confidential manner are protected by law. – Terry O’Malley of O’Malley and Sawyer, LLC

Why would a pastor not report sexual abuse cases to police, even if not required to do so by law? Why would any pastor want to protect someone who sexually abused a child and not help and support the victim by testifying? Why would a pastor refuse to testify when the victim and her family consented for him to do so? How many times has this church remained silent when known sexual abuse has occurred? Will this continue to happen in the future at Landmark Tabernacle in Denver, Colorado? When a pastor refuses to testify and hires an attorney to avoid a prosecutor’s subpoena for him to testify about a young man who repeatedly sexually abused a child for years, in my opinion something is wrong. It is terribly wrong. It is unconscionable. It is reprehensible.

The Telios Law website (Colorado) states, “Many states—Colorado as an example—have explicitly noted in their reporting statutes that the mandatory reporting requirements do not apply if clergy privilege is in play. But as the case from Louisiana demonstrates, arguments about statutes that seem clear may often end up looking more complicated in litigation.” It goes on to say, “Without reporting abuse, how will children be protected? Churches vary a lot in what their doctrine holds privileged. Some churches may wish to clarify that certain conversations are not privileged or confidential when it comes to child abuse reporting—for instance, counseling sessions outside the confessional. Depending on each organization’s religious doctrine, clergy may consider encouraging the parishioner to report the abuse. A victim or even an offender can be encouraged to report. Clergy may investigate further to see if non-privileged information is available. Spiritual discipline may also be imposed. While keeping confession confidential is sacrosanct in churches with this doctrinal position, the church should continue to fulfill its role in protecting children.”

Colorado law needs to be changed. Either clergy are mandated reporters or they are not. If the people are unable to persuade lawmakers to change it, then the United Pentecostal Church (and all other churches) need to develop a strict and clear written policy mandating that confessions of crimes to any of their ministers in any setting is not considered privileged communication and must be reported to police or CPS. They should pull the license of every minister who fails to report sexual abuse or who refuses to testify for a victim in court.

The church must treat all allegations seriously and not dismiss them out of hand. The church should also show compassion and offer assistance to victims and their families, perhaps arranging for professional counseling. The worst thing it can do is to ignore, blame, or attack the victim. – David Bernard, Spiritual Leadership in the Twenty-first Century

Because of decades of cover-ups of sexual abuse by various religious groups, I recommend that anyone who suspects such, that they go directly to the police or Child Protective Services and report. Do not first turn to a pastor or minister as they might choose to not report, regardless of whether they are mandated reporters, and might advise you to not report. Only after the abuse has been properly reported to authorities would I recommend going to a pastor. Church leadership should be made aware of a sexual predator especially if they hold position in the church or have access to the children.

Never assume a pastor has reported child sexual abuse, especially in a state like Colorado where children are not fully protected by the law due to clergy privilege. The facts in the case of Jesse Klockenbrink are that Pastor Dannie Ray Hood:

• chose not to report sexual abuse allegations to the proper authorities when he learned of them (he was aware for a few months before they were reported to police by the family)
• made the decision to handle a sexual assault allegation ‘in house’ and claimed that “the church took steps to prevent Jesse Klockenbrink from being alone with female parishioners”
• refused to share with a detective details of conversations he had with those involved, claiming clergy privilege
• refused to testify for the victim in the court trial after being granted permission by the family to do so

Do ministers ever consider the fact that when they decide to handle sexual abuse cases ‘in house,’ that besides their actions doing little to prevent future harm to members as they cannot have someone follow perpetrators everywhere they go in church and other church related events, they do absolutely nothing to warn or protect people who are not members. Do these leaders only have concern for those who attend their individual church? Do they believe that perpetrators have no life outside the church? What about those from neighboring churches even in the same organization? Did Dannie Hood call all the pastors of the nearby UPCI churches and warn them about Jesse Klockenbrink? Did he even make an announcement at Landmark Tabernacle so members would be aware that a child sex offender was in their midst? Did he offer assistance to the victim and her family or offer to arrange professional counseling as David Bernard clearly suggests? What actual steps were made by him to prevent Klockenbrink from potentially harming other young girls in the church? Did he think an apology from the perpetrator to the victim’s father would make everything alright? Did he believe that simply telling him to not be alone with girls would be sufficient? It is my firm opinion that any minister who handles instances of sexual abuse ‘in house’ is negligent, irresponsible and unethical and should the perpetrator assault anyone in the future because they chose to not report it to police, that they are partly to blame.

If you attend Landmark Tabernacle- The Pentecostals of Denver, be fully aware that Pastor Dannie Hood may claim clergy privilege and neither report sexual abuse, nor testify on your behalf in court. Perhaps he and all leadership at Landmark should make use of the new free training, Becoming a Church that Cares Well for the Abused. There is a free book and related video segments. It is designed to help churches “be equipped to respond well in the initial stages of learning about instances of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse.” From all I have been hearing for over a year from various people, this church is in dire need of such training.

********************

Dannie Hood’s court documents in PDF format
Colorado Title 19 Children’s Code
Some might be interested in reading this PDF file from the Child Welfare Information Gateway. It summarizes laws in the states that list clergy members as mandated reporters and covers clergy privilege.

You will find a complete list of articles in this series by clicking here.