State v. Frazier

Decision Date31 July 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-471,90-471
Citation61 Ohio St.3d 247,574 N.E.2d 483
PartiesThe STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FRAZIER, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

In determining whether a child under ten is competent to testify, the trial cou rt must take into consideration (1) the child's ability to receive accurate imp ressions of fact or to observe acts about which he or she will testify, (2) the child's ability to recollect those impressions or observations, (3) the child' § ability to communicate what was observed, (4) the child's understanding of tr uth and falsity and (5) the child's appreciation of his or her responsibility t o be truthful. On March 25, 1987, Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Derek Speights, age nineteen, was visiting his father, Williams, at the time and was also stabbed.

Appellant, Wayne Frazier, was indicted on April 6, 1987 in a six-count indictment. The first count charged appellant with the aggravated murder of Joann Richards in violation of R.C. 2903.01, and contained aggravated felony, gun, mass murder and felony murder specifications. Count two charged appellant with the aggravated murder of Marcellus Williams in violation of R.C. 2903.01, and contained the same four specifications as in count one. Count three charged appellant with aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11, and contained aggravated felony and gun specifications; count four charged appellant with the attempted murder of Speights in violation of R.C. 2903.02 and R.C. 2923.02, and contained aggravated felony and gun specifications; count five charged appellant with the aggravated robbery of Williams in violation of R.C. 2911.01, and contained aggravated felony and gun specifications; and count six charged appellant with the aggravated robbery of Richards in violation of R.C. 2911.01, and contained aggravated felony and gun specifications.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to all six counts in the indictment on April 17, 1987. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and chose to be tried by a three-judge panel. On August 26, 1987, a motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted.

The trial commenced on August 31, 1987. Derek Speights testified that on March 25, 1987, at approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store, he was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. He identified Wayne Frazier as the driver, Derrick Evans as the passenger in the front seat, and Michael Frazier as the individual in the back seat. Speights testified that appellant inquired as to whether Speights' father, Williams, was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in, and appellant told Speights to inform his father that appellant would be back.

Approximately fifteen to twenty minutes after Speights returned from the store, appellant, his brother Michael Frazier, and Evans arrived at Williams' apartment. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. For approximately five minutes they all engaged in conversation. Suddenly, Evans jumped up and held a gun to Williams' head and cocked the gun. Speights further testified that Evans told everyone not to move or he would kill them and asked Williams for money. At that point Speights was knocked down; however, he was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Also, Speights saw Evans stabbing Williams. At the same time, Michael was stabbing Speights.

Also present in the apartment was seven-year-old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings. Albert identified the appellant in a line-up as someone he knew as "Twin." Albert testified that "Twin" killed his mother, and that "Day-Day," a nickname for Evans, stabbed Albert's father.

Speights testified to all the events that had occurred in the apartment, and that he managed to leave the apartment and summon help. He also identified the appellant as the person who stabbed Joann Richards.

The coroner, Dr. John A. Daniels, testified that he conducted an autopsy on both Williams and Joann Richards. Joann Richards was stabbed thirty-two times. The wounds were from one-half inch to one and one-half inches in depth. The cause of death was multiple stab wounds causing perforation of the heart, main pulmonary artery, and liver, ultimately resulting in exsanguination. The coroner further testified that Williams had been stabbed nine times. The depth of these wounds ranged from three-fourths of an inch to six inches. The cause of death was multiple stab wounds to the chest with perforation of the thoracic aorta and internal and external bleeding.

After speaking with Albert and other people on the scene, the police determined the identity of Wayne Frazier, and subsequently apprehended him. On March 26, 1987, the police interviewed appellant, at which time he made a statement. Appellant admitted that he was at the victims' apartment earlier in the evening on the 25th. As a result of this statement and a follow-up interview of appellant on March 27, the police learned of several different locations where property from the crime scene was located. Various items belonging to Williams and Richards were recovered. In addition, clothing of the appellant and his two accomplices which they had attempted to burn was recovered. A buck knife was found which the appellant said looked like his except for rust spots. Another knife was also recovered by the police, which was identified by Albert as the one used to kill his mother.

The three-judge panel found the appellant guilty of the aggravated murders of Joann Richards and Williams, guilty of the attempted murder of Speights, and guilty of the aggravated robberies and aggravated burglary, and all the specifications as charged in the indictment. Following a mitigation hearing, the panel sentenced the defendant to death for the two murders and imposed terms of incarceration for the remaining convictions.

The appellant appealed to the court of appeals which affirmed the convictions except for the gun specifications; and after independently weighing the aggravating circumstances against any mitigating factors and independently determining the proportionality of the death penalty, affirmed the death sentences.

The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Pros. Atty., Jack H. Hudson and Patric Mary O'Brien, Cleveland, for appellee.

David L. Doughten, Cleveland, for appellant.

Wayne Frazier, pro se.

ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, Justice.

Appellant asserts in his first proposition of law that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Construing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573. From a review of the entire record we find overwhelming evidence going to every element of the crimes. Both Speights and Albert were acquainted with the appellant. Thus his identity is not in question. Speights was nineteen years old at the time of the incident and was in a position to observe the appellant and his two accomplices. Speights testified that appellant, his brother Michael, and Evans came to his father's apartment, and that Evans pulled a gun on Williams and demanded money. Speights further testified that appellant stabbed Joann Richards. After Evans stabbed Williams and Speights was stabbed by Michael, the assailants fled the apartment with property belonging to Williams and Joann Richards. Appellant's conviction is supported by overwhelming evidence, and thus, this proposition of law is without merit.

Appellant contends in his second and third propositions of law that Albert Richards, age seven, was incompetent to testify. Specifically, appellant argues that Albert did not understand the nature of an oath, the necessity to tell the truth, and failed to demonstrate the intellectual capacity necessary to relate the events of the night in question. Evid.R. 601 provides that "[e]very person is competent to be a witness except: (A) * * * children under ten (10) years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly * * *." It is the duty of the trial judge to conduct a voir dire examination of a child under ten years of age to determine the child's competency to testify. Such determination of competency is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The trial judge has the opportunity to observe the child's appearance, his or her manner of responding to the questions, general demeanor and any indicia of ability to relate the facts accurately and truthfully. Thus, the responsibility of the trial judge is to determine through questioning whether the child of tender years is capable of receiving just impressions of facts and events and to accurately relate them. See State v. Wilson (1952), 156 Ohio St. 525, 46 O.O. 437, 103 N.E.2d 552.

The trial court permitted counsel to examine Albert on voir dire. At the conclusion of the questioning, the court found that Albert could relate just impressions as to things that he had observed and was therefore competent to testify. Appellant asserts that Albert lacked the intellectual capacity either to accurately recount the events at issue or to understand his obligation to tell the truth.

In determining whether a child under ten is competent to testify, the trial court must take into consideration (1) the child's ability to receive accurate impressions of fact or to observe acts about which he or she will testify, (2) the child's ability to recollect those impressions or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
575 cases
  • Miller v. State, CR-08-1413
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 8, 2011
    ...that trial counsel is afforded broad authority in determining what evidence will be offered in mitigation." State v. Frazier (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 247, 255, 574 N.E. 2d 483. We also reiterate that post-conviction proceedings were designed to redress denials or infringements of basic consti......
  • State v. John R. Dougherty
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 1996
    ... ... as applied ... Appellant raises ten claims of unconstitutionality in ... Ohio's death penalty statutes. These constitutional ... arguments have been rejected by the Supreme Court of Ohio in ... numerous cases. See, State v. Frazier ... (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 574 N.E.2d 483, State v ... Spirko (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 1, 570 N.E.2d 229, ... State v. Seiber (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 4, 564 N.E.2d ... 408, State v. Steffen (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 111, 509 ... N.E.2d 383, State v. Buell (1986), ... ...
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 22, 2019
    ...counsel is afforded broad authority in determining what evidence will be offered in mitigation.’ State v. Frazier (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 247, 255, 574 N.E.2d 483. We also reiterate that post-conviction proceedings were designed to redress denials or infringements of basic constitutional rig......
  • Ingram v. Stewart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • March 31, 2021
    ...that trial counsel is afforded broad authority in determining what evidence will be offered in mitigation." State v. Frazier (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 247, 255, 574 N.E.2d 483. We also reiterate that post-conviction proceedings were designed to redress denials or infringements of basic constit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • § 18.05 Child Competency and Testimony
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (2018) Title Chapter 18 Witness Competency: FRE 601, 603, 605, 606
    • Invalid date
    ...just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly."); State v. Frazier, 574 N.E.2d 483, 487 (Ohio 1991) (During the voir dire examination, the "trial judge has the opportunity to observe the child's appearance, his or her manner of ......
  • § 18.05 CHILD COMPETENCY AND TESTIMONY
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (CAP) Title Chapter 18 Witness Competency: Fre 601, 603, 605, 606
    • Invalid date
    ...just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly."); State v. Frazier, 574 N.E.2d 483, 487 (Ohio 1991) (During the voir dire examination, the "trial judge has the opportunity to observe the child's appearance, his or her manner of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT