People v. Lambert
| Decision Date | 22 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-082,76-082 |
| Citation | 572 P.2d 847,40 Colo.App. 84 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irene Katherine LAMBERT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Janet L. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Dorian E. Welch, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant was charged by complaint in county court with felony theft. After preliminary hearing, the case was bound over for trial in district court. There, the defendant was convicted and placed on probation. She now appeals this conviction. We affirm.
Mrs. Lambert testified in her own behalf. During cross-examination, she testified that she was not acquainted with the financial status of her husband's business. In seeking the services of the Public Defender, however, Mrs. Lambert had signed an "Application for Representation by the Public Defender," which indicated that between $7000 and $8000 in judgments were outstanding against her husband's business. This application, which also contained the Public Defender's determination of indigency, was part of the county court record which had been certified to the district court and had become part of the district court file.
When the People attempted to refer to this document in an effort to impeach Mrs. Lambert, her lawyer objected on the grounds that the application was a privileged communication between the defendant and her attorney. Following an in camera hearing, the trial court ruled that the prior statement could be used to impeach Mrs. Lambert, but that the application itself could not be introduced before the jury. Mrs. Lambert now contends that this procedure violated her right of confidentiality in the attorney-client relationship, resulted in a deprivation of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and denied her right to equal protection of the law. We do not agree.
The policy underlying the attorney-client privilege contemplates the protection of information which the client should be able to communicate to his attorney without fear of disclosure, and thus, the protection extends only to the communication of matters which are confidential. Losavio v. District Court, 188 Colo. 127, 533 P.2d 32 (1975). Communications containing information to be supplied to another are not privileged. Hill v. Hill, 106 Colo. 492, 107 P.2d 597 (1940).
The statute authorizing the Public Defender to make the initial determination of indigency, § 21-1-103(3), C.R.S.1973, provides as follows:
"The determination of indigency shall be made by the state public defender, subject to review by the court." (emphasis supplied)
Consequently, since the determination of indigency is subject to judicial review, information given the Public Defender in this regard cannot be considered confidential.
Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thiery
...in an effort to impeach the defendant does not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See People v. Lambert, 40 Colo.App. 84, 572 P.2d 847 (1977); United States v. Higginbotham, 539 F.2d 17 (11th Cir.1976). The defendant cannot have it both ways. "One can hardly t......
-
People v. Diaz, 79CA0565
...subject to impeachment to the same extent as any other witness. People v. Neal, 181 Colo. 341, 509 P.2d 598 (1973); People v. Lambert, 40 Colo.App. 84, 572 P.2d 847 (1977). However, when impeaching a witness the relevancy of the impeaching evidence must be clear, must not raise collateral i......
-
South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Fisher
...attorney with the intent that they be conveyed to a third party, Hill v. Hill, 106 Colo. 492, 107 P.2d 597 (1940); People v. Lambert, 40 Colo.App. 84, 572 P.2d 847 (1977), nor is settlement authority a matter prepared by the attorney in anticipation of litigation. Cf. A v. District Court, 1......
-
People v. Lowe, 96CA2041
...inconsistent statement is therefore admissible against the defendant if not protected by any claim of privilege. People v. Lambert, 40 Colo.App. 84, 572 P.2d 847 (1977). Statements by counsel regarding the general nature of the defense are within the scope of the attorney's employment. Ther......
-
Attorney-client Privilege-the Colorado Law
...States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 (10th Cir. 1979). See also, Conyers v. Massa,_____Colo._____, 512 P.2d 283, 284 (1973); People v. Lambert, 40 Colo.App. 84, 572 P.2d 847 (1977). (At 849, the court states the rule in a slightly broader fashion: "Communications containing information to be suppli......