State v. Frazier
73 Ohio St.3d 323, 652 N.E.2d 1000 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an accused's statements to be inadmissible as part of a plea discussion under Ohio Evid.R. 410, the accused must have had a subjective expectation that a plea was being negotiated, and that expectation must have been objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- Tiffany Skiba had accused Appellant, her former stepfather, of rape and sexual abuse, and he was the putative father of her son.
- Appellant's rape trial and a court-ordered paternity blood test were scheduled to take place within days of Skiba's murder.
- While in jail on November 14, 1990, Appellant requested a meeting with Detective Svekric to discuss the murder.
- Detectives Svekric and James, along with Assistant Prosecutor McGinty, met with Appellant at the jail.
- After waiving his Miranda rights and declining to have his attorneys present, Appellant was informed the officers were only there to discuss the Skiba murder and that anything he said could be used against him.
- During the meeting, Appellant repeatedly offered to plead guilty to the murder and the rape charge in exchange for a 'flat time' sentence.
- Each time Appellant made an offer, the detectives and the prosecutor informed him that they had no authority to enter into a plea agreement or make any deals.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was indicted for aggravated murder with death penalty specifications and for aggravated burglary in the trial court.
- Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement, arguing they were inadmissible plea discussions under Evid.R. 410.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- A jury convicted Appellant of all charges and, after a penalty phase, recommended the death sentence, which the trial court imposed.
- Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence.
- The case then came before the Supreme Court of Ohio for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are an accused's unilateral offers to plead guilty, made to law enforcement officers who repeatedly state they lack the authority to negotiate, inadmissible as statements made during protected 'plea discussions' under Ohio Evid.R. 410?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, J.
No. An accused's statements offering to plead guilty are not inadmissible plea discussions when they are made to law enforcement officers who consistently and explicitly disclaim any authority to negotiate a plea. To determine whether statements are protected plea discussions, courts must apply a two-tiered analysis. First, the court must determine if the accused had a subjective expectation that a plea was being negotiated. Second, it must determine if that expectation was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Here, any subjective expectation by Appellant was unreasonable because the detectives and prosecutor repeatedly stated they had no authority to bargain. The attempts to negotiate were strictly one-sided on the part of Appellant and did not constitute a mutual discussion. Therefore, the statements were not protected by Evid.R. 410 and were properly admitted into evidence.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the federal two-part subjective/objective test for defining 'plea discussions' under Ohio evidence law, providing a clear standard for trial courts. It clarifies that a defendant cannot unilaterally shield incriminating statements from admission by framing them as plea offers, especially when law enforcement explicitly states they have no authority to bargain. This holding reinforces the requirement of a mutual, bilateral negotiation process for a discussion to receive evidentiary protection, thereby preventing defendants from using the rule as a tactical shield during police interviews.
