Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justice Lourdes F. Materne and Associate Justice Pro Tem C. Quay Polloi in their ten-page opinion order on Thursday reversed the conviction of Rosemary Osima and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of guilt based on the appropriate legal standard.
Osima was tried for assault and battery for assaulting her student on December 6, 2007.The trial court found her guilty of the charge and sentenced her on March 7, 2008 to 30 days of imprisonment with a fine of $50.The sentence was suspended and Osima was placed on supervised probation.Osima appealed her conviction and argued that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard for assault and battery by a teacher to one of her students based on the affirmative defense of corporal punishment.The government argued that the trial court made a correct finding of fact and claimed that Osima’s actions were not reasonable.The Appellate Division in reversing the conviction said that ‘we agree with appellant and find that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard by simply stating that appellant’s actions were not reasonable.”The Justices said “at minimum, the Dachuo standard for corporal punishment requires that reasonable men would find the action clearly excessive. This is not the standard the trial court applied and reversal is required.”The Supreme Court added that they find Osima’s actions were not even criminally unreasonable, much less clearly excessive.“If a poke to the forehead failing to produce lasting injury in response to a disrespectful act of a student is clearly excessive corporal punishment in the general judgment of reasonable men, there is little that is not,” the Justices said.The Justices added that in finding that the teacher’s action was clearly excessive in the eyes of reasonable men, an analysis of the factors must be conducted and the trial court in using a reasonable standard, omitted all analysis of whether the teacher’s behavior would be considered clearly excessive.The Supreme Court said a trial court may not find that a teacher has acted clearly excessive in the general judgment of reasonable men without stating and weighing on the record: The nature or severity of the offense; the apparent motive of the offender; the influence of his example upon other children in the same family or group; the age, sex physical and mental conditions of the child; the nature and severity of the child’s misconduct, past and present and the availability of less severe but equally effective means of discipline.The victim and her friend were students at Palau High School. In December of 2007, the victim and her friend knocked on Osima’s office door during her lunch hour and then proceeded to ran away.Osima found the students later in class and took them to the principal’s office. The teacher lectured the students with an angry tone and used her finger to “poke” the victim’s head.The student was frightened and upon complaint by her mother, an investigation was conducted. Osima was later charged and was found guilty of the charge.
