State v. Frazier
2011 Ohio 3189
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- June 29, 2008, Cody Frazier stopped after brief pursuit in Akron; officers Hankins, Brown, Simcox, Armstead involved.
- Appellant Dorthea Frazier, Cody’s mother, talked to officers near the arrest as a crowd of 50–70 gathered; her sister Shawn Weems was present.
- Ms. Frazier yelled profanities directed at officers, prompting repeated police orders to cease and go inside the house.
- Officers entered the residence; Ms. Frazier resisted arrest, arm was broken during an escort maneuver, EMS was called.
- Ms. Frazier was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct; disorderly conduct conviction upheld, resisting arrest retried after mistrials, fire resumed with a guilty verdict; sentences run concurrently.
- Appeal challenged jury instruction on free speech, Batson claim, and trial court’s mens rea instruction; the appellate court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give a free-speech jury instruction was reversible error | Frazier argues instructing free speech was required | State contends instruction unnecessary under facts | No reversible error; instruction not required given lack of uncontroverted protected conduct. |
| Whether Batson challenges were properly resolved | Frazier asserts race-based exclusion of Baker | State provided race-neutral reasons, no pattern of discrimination | Batson claim overruled; no showing of purposeful discrimination. |
| Whether trial court’s omission of recklessly mens rea for disorderly conduct was plain error | Due process requires explicit mens rea for disorderly conduct | Omission did not cause manifest miscarriage given evidence of guilt | Plain error not established; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1990) (instruction must be relevant and necessary, Crim.R. 30(A))
- State v. Theuring, 46 Ohio App.3d 152 (Ohio App. 1988) (when proposed instruction not pertinent, can be omitted)
- State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266 (Ohio 1981) (pertinent, correct statement of law required for jury instruction)
- State v. Lessin, 67 Ohio St.3d 487 (Ohio 1993) (_scope of free speech in disorderly conduct; reversible error if protected act used as proof of guilt)
- State v. Karlan, 39 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio 1974) (defining fighting words and limits on free speech against police)
- State v. Hoffman, 57 Ohio St.2d 129 (Ohio 1979) (First Amendment limits on punishing speech unless fighting words)
- State v. Miller-El, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (pretextual Batson challenges require careful scrutiny of reasons)