State v. Frazier, 2012 Ohio 1198

Frazier was convicted at a bench trial of having a weapon under disability, attempted murder, and two felonious assaults (which were merged with the attempted murder).
The court sentenced him to eight years for attempted murder, with three years firearm specification consecutive, plus four years for weapon under disability consecutive, total 15 years.
Indictment charged one count of attempted murder with a firearm specification, two kidnapping counts, two felonious assault counts, and one weapon-under-disability count.
On appeal, Frazier raises three assignments of error challenging sufficiency of the evidence, admission of identification testimony, and denial of a speedy-trial/new-counsel motion.
The majority affirms, finding sufficient evidence, proper admission as an excited utterance (harmless error error not reversible), and no abuse of discretion in denying the speedy-trial and new-counsel motions.
Key factual backdrop includes an in-person shooting at the Gotcha Inn, the victim’s prior interaction with Frazier, and an identification from the victim corroborated by subsequent photo arrays and trial testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict	State argues evidence, including identification, supports elements	Frazier contends identification unreliable and insufficient	Sufficient evidence supports conviction
Admission of Colvin’s statement to Clark	State relied on dying-declaration theory to admit statement	Admission was improper hearsay	Error in applying dying-declaration rule; admissible as excited utterance; harmless error
Speedy-trial and new-counsel motions	State demonstrates no speedy-trial violation; court acted properly	Requests for speedy trial and new counsel should have been granted	No merit; denial of motions affirmed

State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184 (Ohio 1978) (standard for sufficiency review after Crim.R. 29(A))
State v. Apanovitch, 33 Ohio St.3d 19, 514 N.E.2d 394 (Ohio 1987) (guide for sufficiency and standard of review)
State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565 (Ohio 2008) (reiterates sufficiency standard and due process concern)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (establishes review for sufficiency following Jackson v. Virginia)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (articulates standard for reviewing sufficiency; rational trier of fact standard)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 588 N.E.2d 819 (Ohio 1992) (factors for reliability of identification (Biggers framework))
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375 (U.S. 1972) (factors for reliability of pretrial identification)