occurred during that ongoing clergy-counselee relationship are factual matters for the jury to decide and do not present vagueness concerns. The term “religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort” has acquired a reasonably definite meaning from the use of the same term in the evidentiary clergy privilege statute. Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(c) (2006) (stating that a member of the clergy shall not “be examined as to any communication made to the member of the clergy or other minister by any person seeking religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort * * * without the consent of the person”). We have said that the term applies to requests for religious or spiritual aid that are made to clergy in their professional capacity. E.g., State v. Black, 291 N.W.2d 208, 216 (Minn.1980) (<HOLDING>). We have also noted that the “wording of the
holding that request for historical csli information was not a search holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense holding that request from inmate to county jail chaplain to pass information to coeonspir ator was not privileged because the aid requested was not religious and because the request was not intended to be confidential holding that plaintiffs request that inquiry be made of the jury about its intent behind the verdict was not a request to poll the jury holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential