State v. Frazier
2013 Ohio 142
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant-appellant David Frazier was convicted by jury of burglary in 08CR306 and separately implicated in 10CR125; multiple burglary counts were involved.
- DNA evidence linked Frazier to a camouflage jacket and gray sweatshirt (consent to DNA sample obtained after he invoked counsel).
- The suppression court found Frazier not in custody during questioning; he invoked his right to counsel and the questioning ceased, then resumed later for a DNA consent.
- Wife Tamara Frazier testified identifying items and owning the camouflage jacket and stocking hat; defense argued she could elect not to testify and trial court failed to advise accordingly.
- Evidence included eyewitnesses Danielas Tangeman, Vicki Smith, Colleen Sawyer, canine tracks, and a cellmate admission; DNA testimony tied Frazier to the clothing and scene.
- This Court affirmed the conviction for 08CR306 and dismissed the appeal for 17-11-07 for want of prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA evidence obtained after invocation of right to counsel | Frazier argues DNA sample was coerced after counsel invocation | State contends questioning ceased and consent was voluntary | Assignment I overruled; DNA consent valid. |
| Tamara Frazier’s testimony and trial court competency advisement | Defense claims counsel ineffective for not ensuring Tamara knew she could testify or decline | State contends no plain error; record lacked reversible impact | Assignments II–III overruled. |
| Sufficiency and weight of evidence for burglary | Evidence insufficient/weighty enough to convict | Evidence including eyewitness IDs and DNA links supports conviction | Assignments IV–V overruled; conviction affirmed. |
| Unduly suggestive identifications | Show-up identifications were unduly suggestive | Identifications reliable under totality of circumstances | Assignment VI overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; mixed questions of law and fact)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (review of suppression; credibility of witnesses)
- State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 ((4th Dist.1997)) (de novo review of legal conclusions in suppression)