The Akron Legal News

Login | March 28, 2024

Mom who punched teenage daughter loses appeal

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News

Published: December 18, 2014

The 12th District Court of Appeals released an opinion recently denying a new trial for a woman found guilty of punching her 15-year-old daughter.

The three-judge appellate panel found Chrishawnda Zielinski’s newly discovered evidence unpersuasive and improper and affirmed the Warren County Court’s decision denying her a new trial.

The facts of the case state that Zielinski was charged with domestic violence following a physical altercation with her teenage daughter, A.H.

During Zielinski’s trial, A.H. testified that the altercation took place on Mother’s Day after she returned home from a visit with her father.

She said she was upstairs in her room when her mother came and asked her to work outside with the family. The two argued and her mother left.

Shortly thereafter, A.H. said her mother returned and told her to come downstairs and help with the yard work. At that point, she said her mother walked toward her and A.H. put up her hands.

“I put my hands up, not to hit her or anything, but just put my hands up and she was so close, that I actually touched her and she got mad and she started swinging at me, . . . not really hard, just kind of swatting,” A.H. testified.

At that point, she said she pulled Zielinski’s hair to try and get her to stop swatting.

She then tripped and fell and Zielinski fell on top of her.

While the two were on the ground, A.H. said Zielinski choked her and punched her in the face before telling her to stop crying and letting her go.

Following the altercation, A.H. called her father and reported what happened. Her father and stepmother then called the police.

A.H. testified that she had bruises on her face and wrist, blurred vision and sore ribs.

She admitted on cross examination that she wanted to live with her father and was doing so at the time of trial.

The responding sheriff’s deputy testified that A.H. had a bruised and swollen eye and that Zielinski had bite marks on her hand.

He said A.H. admitted to inflicting the bite mark and hitting Zielinski. He also recalled Zielinski admitting to hitting her daughter.

He ultimately took both women into custody because he was unsure who was the primary aggressor.

In her own defense, Zielinski testified that A.H. had a poor attitude and was “mouthy” and a “typical teenager.”

She said when she went up to the girl’s room the first time, A.H. swung back and put up her fist in an aggressive manner. She said she told the girl not to do that and went back downstairs.

When she returned to the room, she said A.H. was throwing things around her room and Zielinski “didn’t feel like listening to all her garbage at that time.”

As A.H. was screaming, Zielinski said she grabbed her arm and the girl swung on her. In retaliation, she said she swung back but didn’t remember hitting the girl.

As the two fell, Zielinski said her daughter hit her head on the wall, damaging the wall and injuring her face.

Zielinski denied telling the deputy that she punched her daughter but admitted telling him she “must’ve punched her, because look at her eye.”

The trial court ultimately found Zielinski guilty of domestic violence and sentenced her six months of community control and a $250 fine. It also ordered her to attend anger management classes.

The 12th District affirmed Zielinski’s conviction on direct appeal.

More than two years later, however, Zielinski filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on “new evidence substantial to her defense.”

Specifically, Zielinski claimed to have discovered a conversation between A.H. and a social worker in which A.H. admitted that the altercation was a set up.

She also revealed that A.H. suffered from a “severe affective problem” that caused her to behave poorly.

Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Zielinski’s motion.

It ruled that the newly discovered evidence was unlikely to impact the outcome of the trial and that it would only be used to impeach A.H.’s testimony.

Zielinski then appealed that decision to the 12th District.

“Here, after a thorough review of the record, we are not convinced this alleged ‘newly discovered’ evidence regarding A.H.’s alleged statements to a social worker acknowledging the physical altercation with Zielinski was a ‘set up,’ or the results of A.H.’s May 2012 psychiatric evaluation, would have had any impact on the trial court’s guilty finding,” Judge Stephen Powell wrote on behalf of the appellate court.

The judges noted that Zielinski’s defense relied on her insistence that she never struck her daughter.

However, even in her own testimony, she admitted to telling the deputy that she “must’ve punched” her daughter based on the girl’s injuries.

“Nothing about this alleged ‘newly discovered’ evidence negates this fact,” Judge Powell wrote.

Further, the judges found that even if the altercation was a set up caused by A.H.’s “severe affective problem,” it did not disprove that Zielinski struck the girl.

Alternatively, the judges held that a new trial may not be granted based on newly discovered evidence that merely impeaches or contradicts a witness’ testimony.

They determined that in her appellate brief, Zielinski acknowledged that the evidence would only impeach and contradict her daughter’s testimony.

“In light of the foregoing, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zielinski’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the same,” Judge Powell concluded.

Presiding Judge Robert Ringland and Judge Michael Powell concurred.

The case is cited State v. Zielinski, 2014-Ohio-5318.

Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]