Clark v. State
261 S.W.2d 339 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney-client privilege does not extend to prevent a third party, who is not an agent of the client or attorney, from testifying about a confidential communication they overheard through eavesdropping. The responsibility to maintain the secrecy of the communication rests with the client.
Facts:
- On March 25, 1952, the deceased secured a divorce from the appellant, Charles Clark.
- That same night, the deceased was shot and killed as she lay in her bed at home.
- Clark's former step-daughter awoke that night to find Clark standing by her bed with a pistol.
- Clark's employee, Tomas Menchaca, was with Clark for most of the night, saw him armed with two pistols, and waited in a car near the deceased's home while Clark was gone for approximately thirty minutes.
- After returning from the deceased's home, Clark went to a hotel and placed a long-distance telephone call to his attorney, Jimmy Martin, in Dallas.
- A telephone operator, Marjorie Bartz, connected the call and, contrary to company rules, listened to the entire conversation.
- Bartz overheard Clark tell his attorney, "Well, I killed her."
- Bartz also heard the attorney advise Clark to "Get rid of the weapon and sit tight and don’t talk to anyone."
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Clark was prosecuted for murder in a Texas trial court.
- The trial court admitted the testimony of a telephone operator who overheard Clark confess to his attorney.
- A jury rejected Clark's insanity defense, found him guilty of murder, and assessed his punishment as death.
- Clark (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that the admission of the telephone operator's testimony violated the attorney-client privilege.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the attorney-client privilege prohibit a third-party telephone operator, who overhears a client's confession to his attorney through eavesdropping, from testifying about that communication in a criminal trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Morrison, Judge
No, the attorney-client privilege does not prohibit a third-party telephone operator from testifying about a communication she overheard. The privilege protects a client from compelled disclosure by themselves or their attorney, but it does not extend to third persons who obtain knowledge of the communication. The court reasoned that the privilege is a derogation of the general duty to testify and must be strictly construed. Since the means of preserving secrecy are entirely in the client's hands, the law does not protect communications when a client fails to take proper precautions and is overheard by a 'mere bystander.' The court cited Wigmore on Evidence and prior case law establishing that third parties who casually overhear privileged conversations are not bound by the privilege and can be compelled to testify.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a critical limitation on the attorney-client privilege, establishing that the privilege's protection is not absolute and depends on the communicating parties maintaining actual confidentiality. It places the burden squarely on the client and attorney to ensure their communications are private, as the law will not shield them from disclosure by an eavesdropper. The ruling solidifies the common law 'eavesdropper exception,' impacting how legal advice is communicated, especially with technologies that might increase the risk of interception. Future cases will rely on this precedent to determine whether a third party's presence or interception defeats the privilege.
