## Facts

- Michael Branham was prosecuted for the murder of his wife, Janette L. Branham, and claimed self-defense.
- W. James Kelly, a practicing lawyer, was Branham’s social friend and had previously represented Branham in unrelated civil matters.
- During the Branhams’ marital problems and divorce discussions, Kelly told both spouses he would not represent either of them in the divorce, though he acted as a “go-between.”
- About a week before the homicide, Kelly visited Branham socially; their conversation included marital issues and informal talk.
- During that conversation, Branham asked Kelly if Kelly was his attorney; Kelly replied, “Sure.”
- Branham then stated he intended to kill his wife; Kelly told him not to “talk that way” and did not provide legal advice or assistance about any plan to kill.
- Branham made similar statements to Kelly on other occasions; Kelly eventually told Branham’s wife what Branham had said.
- Before indictment, the State subpoenaed Kelly for a sworn statement; despite asserting privilege, Kelly was ordered to answer and described Branham’s statements.
- After indictment, Branham invoked lawyer-client privilege to bar Kelly’s testimony; the trial court ruled the communications privileged based on Branham’s reliance on Kelly’s “Sure,” and precluded Kelly’s testimony.
- The State sought certiorari review, arguing the privilege ruling was legally erroneous and materially impaired the prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether Branham’s statements to Kelly about intending to kill his wife were “confidential communications made in the rendition of legal services” and thus protected by the lawyer-client privilege under Florida law.
2. Whether a casual acknowledgment of being a person’s lawyer, together with prior unrelated representation, suffices to privilege statements made during an informal, social conversation.
3. Whether the trial court’s privilege order caused irreparable harm justifying certiorari relief.

## Decision

- The court granted the State’s petition for certiorari and quashed the trial court’s order enforcing the privilege.
- The court held the challenged communications were not privileged because they were not made for the purpose of obtaining legal services or legal advice, and no such advice was sought or given.
- The court concluded the trial court misapplied the governing privilege standard by focusing on Branham’s subjective belief and reliance rather than the objective purpose and character of the communications.
- The court found certiorari appropriate because excluding the testimony inflicted material injury on the prosecution that could not be adequately cured on post-judgment appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s lawyer-client privilege protects only confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services.
- A communication is not privileged merely because it is made to a lawyer, because the lawyer previously represented the speaker in unrelated matters, or because the speaker believes an attorney-client relationship exists.
- The privilege analysis turns on the objective purpose of the communication and whether it occurred in the context of rendering legal services, not on a casual label or generalized relationship.

## Conclusion

The court held that Branham’s statements to Kelly during a social conversation were not protected by the lawyer-client privilege because they were not made to obtain legal advice or services, and it quashed the order barring the State from using Kelly’s testimony.


State v. Branham, 952 So. 2d 618 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007)