ILNews

3 of former corrections officer’s convictions upheld by appeals court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former corrections officer at the Marion County Jail who tried to get a co-worker to fool around with him had three of his four convictions stemming from their interactions upheld Monday by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The judges reversed one sexual battery conviction because the proof didn’t support Maurice Frazier’s Class D felony conviction.

In Maurice Frazier v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1210-CR-526, Frazier challenged his convictions of Class D felonies criminal confinement, official misconduct and two counts of sexual battery. In one incident, Frazier grabbed the shoulder of female Marion County Sheriff’s deputy S.R. and ground his pelvis against her buttocks. Several weeks later, he came into the control center where S.R. was working and tried to get her to come with him somewhere that the cameras wouldn’t be able to record. When S.R. tried to leave, he grabbed her arm a couple of times. After she sat back down, he grabbed her breast and put her hand on his crotch. S.R. reported the incident the next day.

The judges agreed with Frazier that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support one of his Class D felony sexual battery convictions – the one where he pushed his pelvis into S.R. The state didn’t prove compulsion by force or imminent threat of force on this count. The state did prove at trial that Frazier committed Class A misdemeanor battery, so the trial court should enter judgment on this count as the misdemeanor and resentence him accordingly, Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

The appeals court also rejected Frazier’s claims that his convictions violate double jeopardy principles. His sexual battery convictions occurred weeks apart and were not based upon one incident, Vaidik pointed out. In addition, although the criminal confinement and second sexual battery charge stem from the incident in the control center, the criminal confinement charge is based on Frazier grabbing S.R.’s arm several times as she tried to move away from him. The sexual battery charge was based on his grabbing her breast and hand and placing it on his crotch.

Finally, Frazier argued his official misconduct conviction is double jeopardy because the same evidence was used to convict him of sexual battery. But there are separate victims in this case – S.R. was the victim of the battery and the public was the victim of the official misconduct, Vaidik wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT