IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
DIANE ZIEJEWSKI, )
)
Appellant/Defendant-Below, )
)
v. ) I.D. No. 1403003939
)
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
Appellee/Plaintiff-Below . )
Submitted: June 23, 2015
Decided: July 22, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Appeal from the Decision of the Court of Common Pleas — AFFIRMED
Benjamin S. Gifford IV, Esq., Woloshin, Lynch & Natalie, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware, Attorney for Appellant/Defendant-Below.
Regina S. Schoenberg, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee/Plaintiff-Below.
ROCANELLI, J.
This is an appeal from a decision after trial of the Court of Common Pleas
(“Trial Court”). On July 31, 2014, Defendant Diane Ziejewski was charged with
one count of Menacing and one count of Assault in the Third Degree. After a
bench trial on March 26, 2015, the Trial Court found Defendant not guilty of
Menacing and guilty of Assault in the Third Degree. The Trial Court considered
and rejected Defendant’s self-defense claim. In so ruling, the Trial Court accepted
the testimony of the victim as credible and rejected Defendant’s self-defense
testimony.
Thereafter, on March 30, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate
Judgment or, in the alternative, a Motion for Reargument. At oral argument on
April 10, 2015, Defendant withdrew the Motion to Vacate Judgment. Defendant
pursued the Motion for Reargument on the basis that defense counsel had cited the
incorrect standard for the self-defense claim. The State opposed the Motion. The
Trial Court denied the Motion for Reargument.
Defendant filed the pending appeal. Defendant argues that the Trial Court
imposed an improper burden on Defendant with respect to her self-defense claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Statutory authority provides that the Superior Court may consider an appeal
from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in a criminal action.1 The
1
11 Del. C. § 5301(c).
1
appellate role of this Court is to determine “whether there is legal error and
whether the factual findings made by the trial judge are sufficiently supported by
the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.” 2 This
Court must accept findings of the Trial Court that are supported by the record, even
if this Court would have made contrary findings. 3 Moreover, this Court will accept
the Trial Court’s findings regarding credibility unless the findings are clearly
erroneous.4 Questions of law are reviewed de novo. 5
ANALYSIS
This Court finds that the record is free from legal error and supports the
Trial Court’s decision after trial, which included characteristics of a logical
deductive process. The Trial Court’s decision explicitly and correctly stated that
the State bore the burden of proving every element of the offenses charged beyond
a reasonable doubt. The Trial Court found the State did not meet its burden of
proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to menacing, but did meet its
burden with respect to Assault in the Third Degree, notwithstanding Defendant’s
self-defense claim.
2
Onkeo v. State, 182, 2008 WL 3906076, at *1 (Del. July 1, 2008); Wheeler v. Clerkin, 2005
WL 873341, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2005).
3
Onkeo, 2008 WL 3906076, at *1.
4
Id.
5
11 Del. C. § 5301(c); DiSabatino v. State, 808 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Del. Super. 2002) aff'd, 810
A.2d 349 (Del. 2002).
2
In support of its decision, the Trial Court found that Defendant admitted she
punched the victim. The record reflects that upon consideration of the testimony
of all of the witnesses, the Trial Court found the cohesive testimony of the police
officer, the victim, and Defendant’s mother supported its finding that Defendant
did indeed approach and punch the victim. The record reflects that the Trial Court
specifically considered and accepted the credibility of the victim’s testimony when
the victim stated she was not the aggressor, and did not initiate, instigate, or
physically provoke Defendant. The Trial Court also considered and rejected the
credibility of Defendant’s testimony, finding her claims of self-defense
inconsistent with prior statements to police and with her actions at the time of the
incident.
Self-defense is a defense of justification. 6 To establish a claim of self-
defense, a defendant must offer “‘some credible evidence’ sufficient to create
reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.” 7 The Trial Court found that based on
the facts presented and the incredible nature of Defendant’s self-defense testimony,
Defendant was not justified in punching the victim. Although the Trial Court did
not explicitly state the standard required to establish a self-defense claim, the Trial
Court’s analysis on the record considered the evidence presented and determined
6
11 Del. C. § 464(a).
7
Hamilton v. State, 343 A.2d 594, 595–96 (Del. 1975) (recognizing that the 1973 revisions to 11
Del. C. § 303 converted self-defense into a “simple defense”); 11 Del. C. § 303 (providing
“credible evidence” as the standard of proof for a “simple defense”).
3
that Defendant had not presented credible evidence in support of the claim of self-
defense. Indeed, the Trial Court explained that it found Defendant incredible, the
victim credible, and that the record lacked evidence to justify Defendant’s actions.
For example, the Trial Court explained that Defendant testified that she sustained
injuries but, unlike the victim, Defendant did not take any photographs of the
alleged injuries and never sought medical treatment. Also, the Trial Court noted
that, although Defendant testified that she told the police officer she sustained
injuries, the police officer testified that Defendant did not inform him of any
injuries and the police officer also testified that he did not observe any injuries on
Defendant.
On appeal, Defendant points to a stray comment by the Trial Court that
Defendant had not satisfied the standard for reargument to demonstrate that the
Trial Court committed legal error by improperly imposing a burden of proof on
Defendant. Although the Trial Court made a passing reference that “Defendant did
not establish its burden of self-defense,” 8 it is clear from the record that this
comment is merely dicta and is not the basis for the Trial Court’s findings that
Defendant’s actions were not justified as self-defense.
The Trial Court applied the appropriate legal standards in its decision after
trial, including careful consideration and rejection of Defendant’s self-defense
8
State v. Ziejewski, C.A. No. 1403003939, at 9:1–2 (Del. Com. Pl. Apr. 10, 2015)
(TRANSCRIPT).
4
claim for lack of credible evidence. The Trial Court’s decision did not impose any
burden of proof on Defendant.
CONCLUSION
The Trial Court’s decision after trial and denial of the Motion for
Reargument is free from legal error. The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion.
Moreover, the Trial Court’s factual findings are supported by the record and are
the product of an orderly and logical deductive process. The Trial Court’s
judgments of credibility are not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the decision of the
Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2015.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
____________________________________
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
5