United States v. Dwayne Frosch
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13299
8th Cir.2014Background
- Dwayne Richard Frosch (formerly Frank Dwayne Bayliff) was serving supervised release after convictions for kidnapping and mailing threatening communications.
- In June 2013, after a night apart, Ann Danley returned to find her apartment ransacked; Frosch then arrived, brought alcohol and knives, broke her phone, kicked and threatened her, and prevented her from leaving that night.
- Danley later reported the incident; police observed fresh bruises and signs the apartment had been recently straightened after a ransacking; Frosch ultimately turned himself in after contact by his probation officer.
- The district court held three hearings and found Danley’s testimony credible, concluding Frosch committed violations of state law (false imprisonment, domestic abuse assault, first-degree harassment) and revoked supervised release, sentencing Frosch to 51 months’ imprisonment.
- Frosch appealed only arguing the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous, asserting Danley fabricated the events and pointing to lack of state prosecution and purported inconsistencies or benign explanations for the physical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s factual findings that Frosch committed state-law offenses supporting revocation are clearly erroneous | Danley: testified to assault, threats, and forced confinement; physical signs corroborate her account | Frosch: Danley fabricated allegations to send him back to prison; physical evidence and lack of state charges undermine her story | Court: Affirmed—findings not clearly erroneous; credibility determinations upheld |
| Whether physical evidence contradicted Danley’s account | Danley: evidence (bruises, apartment recently straightened after ransacking) supports her testimony | Frosch: burglary-like signs absent at time of photos prove fabrication; he left voluntarily in morning | Court: Evidence corroborated Danley; reasonable explanation for her not fleeing in morning; district court’s interpretation permitted |
| Whether absence of state prosecution negates supervised-release violation | N/A | Frosch: lack of state charges proves innocence | Court: Rejected; absence of prosecution does not refute federal revocation findings |
| Standard of review for revocation factual findings | N/A | N/A | Court: Review is for abuse of discretion; subsidiary factfinding reviewed for clear error; credibility findings virtually unassailable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ahlemeier, 391 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2004) (standards for revocation of supervised release)
- United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2003) (subsidiary factfinding in revocation reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility determinations in district court are virtually unassailable on appeal)
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (absence of state prosecution does not negate supervised-release violation)