Frazier v. State

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 191
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-13-735
Opinion Delivered March 19, 2014
CORIE RODRIGUS FRAZIER APPEAL FROM THE UNION
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2012-371-1]
V.
HONORABLE HAMILTON H.
SINGLETON, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Corie Frazier appeals his conviction for aggravated assault and argues that the court
erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on that charge. We find no error and affirm.
In a criminal information filed in August 2012, Frazier was charged with first-degree
attempted murder, committing a terroristic act, three counts of aggravated assault, and
possession of a firearm by certain persons. At a jury trial held in April 2013, the State
introduced evidence that, on 19 July 2012, Frazier and his friend Mark Watts were involved
in an argument over money owed to Frazier by Watts. This disagreement resulted in Frazier
shooting Watts five times using a handgun. Frazier’s sole challenge on appeal relates to his
conviction for the aggravated assault of Sharon Watts, Mark Watts’s wife, so only testimony
pertinent to that point on appeal is discussed below.
Sharon Watts testified that, on 19 July 2012, she was employed as a live-in CNA, and
she and her husband, Mark, were living in Mildred Gillespie’s home. Sharon testified that she
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 191
had known Frazier for several years because he and her husband were friends. She explained
that on June 19, Frazier came to Ms. Gillespie’s home several times. The first time, she
explained, he and her husband had a verbal argument, and when it started getting loud, she
intervened and said, “y’all going to have to leave.” She understood that the argument was
about money, that her husband owed Frazier money, and she felt it was “strongly drug
related.” She stated that before Frazier left, he said that he was going to come back and
“shoot up the place” and that he was “going to be on the front page for mercing your bitch
ass.”1
According to Sharon, Frazier came back to the house approximately thirty minutes
later. She went outside to speak to Frazier and again asked him to leave. Frazier told her that
it was not about the money, it was “about the principles,” and that her husband was
disrespectful. Mark then came out of the house and approached Frazier’s vehicle, and Sharon
observed Frazier reach under his seat and retrieve a gun. She yelled at Mark to run, and
Frazier got out of his vehicle and ran behind Mark. Shots were fired, and Sharon saw Mark
fall. Frazier then left the front yard, but as Mark attempted to get up and enter the house,
Frazier returned and shot at Mark again. As Frazier left the yard a second time, Sharon
explained: “I thought he was going to shoot me but he didn’t. I said, ‘Please, Corie, don’t
shoot me.’ . . . He just took off running.” Sharon stated that she did not see her husband in
possession of any type of weapon.
1
“Merc” or “merk” is slang for murder.
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 191
Mark Watts testified that he and Frazier had been best friends since the sixth grade.
He acknowledged that Frazier had “fronted” him about $3800 worth of drugs because he and
his family were in a “financial bind.” Mark testified that he sold the drugs and gave Frazier
half the money, and that he thought they “had an understanding of how I was going to give
him the other half. That was a big misunderstanding.” On the day of the shooting, Frazier
told Mark that he needed the money, and Mark told him (Frazier) that he did not have it.
He stated that he had never seen Frazier as angry as he was that day. Frazier became “loud
and rugged” and, while they were arguing, Frazier hit him. Sharon then came out of the
house, and according to Mark, “[t]hat’s when he [Frazier] got to talking about, ‘your husband
fixing to lose his life.’” Mark also testified that Frazier said he would be “on the front page
for mercing my friend.”
Mark explained that after Frazier left, he called Frazier because he wanted them to “sit
down and talk about this and see if we can figure it out.” Frazier told him that he would
come back to the house. About twenty minutes later, Maria Washington, a friend of Sharon’s
who was visiting at the time, told him that Frazier was outside. Mark went outside and heard
his wife pleading with Frazier, and after a few words between himself and Frazier, Mark heard
his wife say “run, baby, he got a gun.” Mark saw Frazier come around his vehicle holding
the gun down at his side. Mark tried to evade Frazier, but they ran into each other and
Frazier shot him. Mark testified that after several shots, Frazier walked away, but then
returned and “pointed the gun directly at my temple and pulled the trigger and the gun
jammed.” Mark testified that he did not have a gun at any time during the confrontation.
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 191
At the close of the State’s evidence, Frazier made a directed-verdict motion on all
counts. Specifically, with regard to the assault on Sharon Watts, Frazier argued that there was
no evidence that shots were fired at Sharon and that the shell casings indicated that all shots
were fired toward Mark. Frazier argued that Sharon fled the area and that “she was not in
substantial risk of death or serious physical injury as those shots were contained to a defined
area.” The State responded by arguing that
Ms. Watts was in the yard and was a direct subject of the Defendant coming
out of the motor vehicle holding a handgun clearly described. . . . [H]e created
a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to everyone involved at the
crime scene at that point. He was approaching Sharon Watts and Mark Watts
who were standing side by side by the motor vehicle. You don’t have to shoot
at her to satisfy the requirements and elements of this crime.
The court denied Frazier’s motion for directed verdict on this count, although it granted a
directed verdict in Frazier’s favor on other counts.
Frazier testified. He explained that he had agreed to help Mark by “fronting” him
some cocaine to sell. After several failed attempts to get paid, Frazier thought he was going
to get some money from Mark on June 19, but when Frazier arrived at Ms. Gillespie’s house,
Mark told him (Frazier) that he did not have the money. Frazier admitted that he was
irritated and that he slapped Mark. He also admitted that he was carrying a gun at that time
and that it was tucked into his waist. But he explained that when he left the house the first
time, he was not thinking that he would shoot Mark. He denied stating that he was going
to “merk” anyone. According to Frazier, he wanted nothing else to do with Mark. But, after
Mark called him, he agreed to go back to the house and talk.
4
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 191
Frazier said that when he returned to the house, he got out of his vehicle and talked
to Sharon. Frazier testified that Mark appeared on the porch, and the two men began to
approach each other. Frazier said that he saw a gun in Mark’s hand as he came down the steps
from the porch. At that time, Frazier made a motion of going for his gun. After moving
around a parked Escalade “for defensive purposes,” Frazier observed Mark “on the ground
pulling his hand out from under the Escalade. That’s when I just started shooting.” According
to Frazier, Mark had dropped his gun and was attempting to retrieve it, so Frazier shot him.
Frazier testified that, to his knowledge, Sharon was still behind him and Mark, and he didn’t
see her again until he was leaving. He denied aiming his gun at her or saying anything to her.
He testified that she was “well out of the way” and denied that she said “please don’t shoot
me.”
After the close of the evidence, Frazier renewed his motions for directed verdict, which
were denied. The jury found Frazier guilty of first-degree attempted murder, aggravated
assault, and possession of a firearm, and he was sentenced to terms of thirty years’, six years’,
and twenty years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively. This appeal followed.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports
the verdict. Richey v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 382. This court will affirm a conviction when
there is substantial evidence to support it, and substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient
force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without
resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Moreover, the jury is responsible for determining
5
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 191
the weight and credibility of evidence. Id.
A person commits aggravated assault if, under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life, he or she purposely engages in conduct that creates
a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. Ark. Code Ann. §
5-13-204(a)(1) (Supp. 2011). Frazier argues that based on the facts developed at trial, and even
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was insufficient evidence
to support his conviction for aggravated assault. He says that he exited his Mercedes with the
gun pointed at the ground, chased Mark, and aimed at Mark while shooting. Sharon Watts,
meanwhile, remained in the front yard and out of the line of fire. Frazier believes that a
substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to Sharon Watts was never present in these
circumstances.
According to the State, Frazier threatened both Sharon and Mark when he said he was
going to “shoot up the place” and also threatened to murder Mark. And Frazier did shoot
Mark multiple times before turning toward Sharon while leaving, prompting her to beg him
not to shoot her. The State contends that this evidence demonstrates that Frazier purposefully
engaged in conduct that created a substantial danger of death or serious injury to Sharon
Watts.
Frazier admits to shooting his gun multiple times in the direct vicinity of both Sharon
and Mark Watts; that only Mark Watts was injured does not negate the danger of death or
physical injury that Sharon was exposed to as well. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State, and taking into account the jury’s assessment of the credibility of the
6
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 191
evidence, we hold that substantial evidence supports Frazier’s conviction for aggravated
assault.
Affirmed.
WHITEAKER and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Latonya Laird Austin, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
7