Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Luis Angel Aviles was charged with burglary in 2002. Unsatisfied with his attorney’s decision to negotiate a plea rather than go to trial, Aviles wrote a letter to the trial court to complain about his attorney. He also requested a Spanish-language interpreter, though he could communicate somewhat in English. Aviles’ attorney sought to have himself removed from Aviles’ case. While waiting in the courtroom for the hearing on the removal motion, the prosecutor indicated that she would seek a more severe charge if Aviles refused the plea bargain. Aviles’ attorney explained the prosecutor’s position to Aviles in English. The interpreter gave him the same information in Spanish. During the interpreter’s discussion, which was out of earshot of anyone else, Aviles pointed his hand at the prosecutor like a gun and said, “Cuando salga de aqui la mato,” which the interpreter found to mean, “When I get out of here, I’ll kill her.” The interpreter told Aviles’ attorney about the threat, and the two of them reported it to the prosecutor, who, in turn, reported it to the district attorney. Aviles was then charged with retaliation for threatening to kill a prosecutor. The interpreter was the only one who testified. Aviles was convicted and sentenced to 20 years. On appeal, Aviles argues that the communication of the threat between him and the court-appointed interpreter was confidential, more specifically, whether the attorney-client privilege applies when a criminal defendant makes a threat in the presence of his court-appointed interpreter. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court says that to decide this issue, it need not decide whether a court-appointed interpreter is a representative of a lawyer because of the communication of a threat. Such a communication made to a lawyer is not made for the rendition of professional legal services; the same reasoning applies when the communication is made to a court-appointed interpreter. “We hold that this communication of an intent to commit a crime is not covered by the attorney-client privilege, rendering irrelevant the role the interpreter may have been serving at the time of the communication. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the interpreter to testify about the threat.” OPINION:Puryear, J.; Law, C.J., Patterson and Puryear, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.