Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Michael Leroy Cameron’s codefendant approached an undercover officer in a nightclub and asked him if he would like to smoke some marijuana. The officer declined but asked if she knew where he could buy some cocaine. The codefendant said that she could get him some and used the officer’s cell phone to call Cameron. Shortly thereafter, Cameron entered the nightclub, made eye contact with his codefendant and walked back outside. The codefendant told the officer that her friend had arrived with the drugs. The officer informed another undercover officer who was with him at the club that he was about to make a drug deal, and the officers went outside with the codefendant to meet Cameron. Once outside, the codefendant walked over to Cameron, who was standing next to a truck. She took something from him, which the officers assumed was cocaine, and brought it to them. They took the drugs from her and gave her the money, which she then took to Cameron. The officers later ran the license plate number on the truck by which Cameron stood. When they obtained the driver’s license photo of the truck’s owner, they recognized him as the man who had delivered the drugs. Authorities arrested Cameron for delivery of a controlled substance. At trial, Cameron wanted to call his former attorney to testify regarding notes the attorney had taken when he reviewed the police report in the state’s file. The state asked to approach the bench and, out of the hearing of the jury, asked why the former attorney was being called. Cameron responded that the purpose of the testimony was to show that the former attorney had seen two different police reports in the file that had conflicting information regarding the color of Cameron’s truck. The trial court asked if the testimony would be based on the former attorney’s personal memory or his notes. Cameron responded that it would be based on the former attorney’s notes, which he had with him. The trial court asked if Cameron was willing to waive his attorney-client privilege. The defense responded that he did not believe that it required any kind of waiver and that Cameron would not waive his attorney-client privilege. The trial court would not allow the witness to testify. During an offer of proof, Cameron’s attorney testified that the first time he reviewed the state’s file, it contained a handwritten police report stating that the truck by which Cameron was standing was white. The second time he reviewed the file, the handwritten report had been replaced by a typewritten report which stated that the truck was dark blue. The jury found Cameron guilty and assessed a sentence of 25 years. Cameron appealed the trial court’s decision that his former attorney could not testify without a complete waiver of the attorney-client privilege. In a memorandum opinion, the 7th Court of Appeals held that Cameron failed to effectively inform the trial court of his objection; thus, he did not preserve the error for review. Cameron filed a petition for discretionary review. The CCA granted the petition and issued an opinion stating that Cameron was offering evidence, not objecting to evidence. The CCA suggested that its 2005 decision in Reyna v. State possibly was relevant and sent the case back to the 7th Court for reconsideration of the issue. On remand, the 7th Court stated that the proffered testimony did not implicate a confidential communication between Cameron and his former attorney but rather was the work product of the former attorney, which is covered by Texas Rule of Evidence 503(b)(2). After reviewing the record, the 7th Court said, “Significantly, appellant did not contend the evidence was admissible under the special provision covering attorney work-product privilege or inform the court that the attorney-client privilege was not applicable.” Based on the CCA’s holding in Reyna, the 7th Court held that the error was not preserved for review. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Because Cameron offered the evidence rather than attempting to exclude it by claiming privilege, the only issue affecting admissibility was whether the evidence was relevant. Cameron sought to impeach the credibility of the witness’ testimony about the drug transaction by establishing that the police had given conflicting descriptions of the truck and had possibly even altered the offense report. Therefore, the CCA found that the evidence was relevant for impeachment purposes. Such evidence, the CCA stated, should be admissible unless Cameron or his former lawyer invoked the work-product privilege, which they did not. The trial court incorrectly thought that the evidence should be excluded unless Cameron waived his attorney-client privilege. Because the trial court’s decision was based on a misapplication of the law, the CCA held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to admit the evidence. Next, the CCA noted that Cameron presented his former attorney to testify, explained to the trial court that waiver of the attorney-client privilege was not necessary, obtained a ruling from the court in which the trial judge mentioned the work-product doctrine and made an offer of proof. Cameron’s actions were sufficient to preserve error in this situation, the CCA stated. Thus, the CCA held that the 7th Court erred in holding that Cameron did not preserve error. OPINION:Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., joined. CONCURRENCE:Keller, P.J., concurred without a written opinion.

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.