Court sets date for next Ohio execution

By Marc Kovac | February 20, 2016 at 12:00a.m.

COLUMBUS

The Ohio Supreme Court set an execution date for a man convicted in a Lucas County murder more than a decade ago.

Friday’s decision came over objections from two justices, who questioned why the court would set execution dates when the state hasn’t confirmed a source for the drugs used in lethal injections.

James Frazier was sentenced to death for the 2004 murder of 49-year-old Mary Stevenson, a disabled North Toledo woman. According to documents, Frazier “strangled her, slashed her throat, then stole her purse and wallet.”

The state’s high court set Frazier’s execution date for Oct. 17, 2019.

Frazier has argued he is mentally retarded. According to documents, a clinical psychologist who tested Frazier noted he “failed the first grade, was labeled as a slow learner, was in special-education classes and dropped out of high school at the age of 19, which evidenced intellectual limitations early in life.”

But prosecutors asked for an execution date, saying in filings that Frazier had “pursued all available avenues of appeal afforded under both Ohio and federal law. Every court that has examined defendant’s claims has upheld his murder conviction and death sentence.”

There are no executions scheduled for this year, after Gov. John Kasich postponed all lethal injections until 2017, citing continued difficulties in finding supplies of drugs used in the procedure.

With Frazier’s date, there are now 11 executions scheduled for 2017, eight for 2018 and seven for 2019.

But two justices are questioning why any new dates are being set.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote, “The state does not have the drugs needed to carry out the executions. ... At this time, the state is incapable of properly executing the 25 people for whom execution dates have previously been set. It serves no rational purpose for this court to continue to set execution dates while significant logistical obstacles remain in place and more legal challenges are likely.”

Justice William O’Neill concurred in the dissent.