The Akron Legal News

Login | March 29, 2024

Mother who stabbed her adult daughter loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: July 28, 2014

The 8th District Court of Appeals recently released an opinion affirming the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which convicted Jubrell Mango of felonious assault and domestic violence and then overruled her motion for a new trial.

Mango claimed the lower court abused its discretion by denying her motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing because the affidavit she submitted from a previously unavailable witness met the requirements of Crim.R. 33(A).

“Upon a review of the record, this court cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in this matter,” wrote Presiding Judge Kenneth Rocco on behalf of the Eighth District’s three-judge appellate panel.

Case summary states that the victim of Mango’s crime was her 19-year-old daughter, whose name was not disclosed.

The victim testified that, on March 19, 2013, she had been living with Mango for a few weeks after having been in foster care for most of her childhood.

Mango’s sister, the victim’s aunt, also lived with them.

That afternoon, the victim awoke to Mango screaming at her to open the door for her aunt.

The victim obliged, but as her aunt walked past the bathroom, Mango called out to tell her sister that the victim had lied to her during a phone conversation that took place on the previous day.

Mango’s daughter disagreed and her assertion provoked Mango.

She testified that her mother came “running from the bathroom” and into the victim’s room and began punching her in her arm.

Mango’s sister stepped in and attempted to pull her away from the victim.

Eventually, the women succeeded in pulling Mango from the room and shutting her outside.

From beyond the door, the victim testified that she heard Mango “ranting and raving.”

This violent behavior frightened Mango’s daughter enough for her to call the police.

However, before she could complete the call, Mango broke into the room, grabbed the phone from the victim’s hand, threw it against the wall and then went into the bathroom and threw the phone in the toilet.

Mango then proceeded to the kitchen where she retrieved two knives.

When she returned to her daughter’s room, she began stabbing her and struck her in both arms.

Mango’s sister managed to wrestle the knives away and then Mango ordered her daughter out of her house despite the fact that it was snowing outside and the daughter only wore a T-shirt and jeans.

The victim noticed workers down the street and approached them for help.

Because she was covered in blood and appeared to be in shock, the workers called the police.

During that time, the victim noticed her mother and aunt leaving their home.

The police ensured that the victim obtained medical treatment and Mango was arrested the next day.

The indictment issued against her charged her with two counts of felonious assault, one count of domestic violence and one count of resisting arrest.

Mango waived her right to a jury trial and the trial court found Mango guilty of felonious assault and domestic violence.

Approximately one month later, Mango filed a motion for a new trial.

According to her, she had newly discovered evidence in the form of her sister.

At the new trial, the sister would allegedly testify that she was not present during Mango’s altercation with the victim.

In an affidavit attached to Mango’s motion, the sister said she had “not seen her sister and niece for several years,” and that any claim that she was present during the incident was false.

Before the trial court sentenced Mango it noted that it had reviewed her motion but believed that “the question of the statements made in the affidavit in support was considered during the trial by other testimony that was offered.”

The trial court held that “the fact that (Mango’s sister) did not appear at trial was not unduly prejudicial.”

Mango was ultimately sentenced to a period of community control with a potential two-year stay in prison if she violated the terms.

In her appeal from the trial court’s decision to deny her motion for a new trial, Mango contended the affidavit she attached to the motion warranted a full hearing on the issue of whether a new trial was appropriate.

“A motion for a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court,” wrote Judge Rocco, “And the court’s ruling on the motion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”

The appellate panel held that no abuse of discretion occurred in Mango’s case.

In order to warrant a new trial, a defendant must prove that their newly discovered evidence meets six different criteria: There must be a strong probability that the evidence will change the result if a new trial is granted, the evidence must have been discovered since the trial and, in the exercise of due diligence, it must not have been able to be discovered before the trial.

The new evidence is also required to be material to the issues, must not be “merely cumulative to former evidence” and cannot “merely impeach or contradict the former evidence.

“A review of the record in this case demonstrates that the affidavit Mango attached to her motion did not meet the foregoing requirements,” Judge Rocco wrote.

The appellate panel held that Mango’s sister only stated that she did not live with Mango, and this left unanswered the question of where the sister could be located in order for her to testify at trial.

Additionally, the court of appeals pointed out that that sister did not make any offer to testify.

“Even if the (sister) had provided the information, her statements were merely cumulative to Mango’s own testimony at trial,” Judge Rocco wrote.

Because Mango testified that she had not seen her sister “in a long time,” the sister would have had no familiarity with either her or the victim, therefore, she would be unable to offer any new information that differed from the evidence that had already been presented at Mango’s original trial.

Under the circumstances, the appellate panel concluded that Mango was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied her motion for a new trial.

Judges Mary Kilbane and Eileen T. Gallagher joined Judge Rocco to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Mango, 2014-Ohio-2768.

Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]