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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT