When the Defendant in McAfee V

Multiple Choice

When the defendant in McAfee v. State asserted that an attorney-client relationship existed with his attorney and where the two had discussed matters involving his threat to kill himself after acknowledging that he had killed his wife, the court ruled that:

A) an attorney-client privilege existed because the attorney, Mr. Storer, represented the defendant in civil matters and that should be sufficient to cover a criminal matter that was somewhat discussed with police and emergency responders.
B) an attorney-client relationship existed between McAfee and attorney Storer because Storer was actually giving legal advice to McAfee on how to avoid being charged with the murder of his wife.
C) no attorney-client relationship existed between McAfee and attorney Storer involving criminal representation because the two men were long-time friends and that their phone calls on the evening when the killing took place were more of the nature of old friends discussing matters rather than efforts at obtaining legal advice during a confidential conversation.
D) no attorney-client relationship covering criminal matters existed because the two men were discussing how to get away with murder, and public policy prohibits an attorney from helping a client escape justice.