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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT