Special education teacher appeals prison sentence in abuse case

A special education teacher was indicted on seven counts of injury to a child. She pleaded guilty to the charges and a hearing was held to assess punishment. 

At the hearing, the evidence showed that she began working as a special education aide in 1991 and ultimately earned her master's degree in education administration. Those who know her well described the teacher as meek, mild and gentle. Many also described her as a kind and nurturing person. She had a history of positive reviews in her various roles in education.

At the time of the offenses, she worked as a special education teacher at an elementary school.

The court viewed approximately 50 videos showing the teacher abusing nonverbal autistic children in her classroom. Examples of the conduct included repeatedly striking children (including with a yardstick), kicking them, spraying a child with Clorox, dragging one child across the room onto a mat and shoving him with her foot, attempting to force feed a child a crayon, striking a child on the back of the head, swatting other children on the back, and pouring a cup of ice down a child's shirt. 

Several parents testified as to how the actions harmed their children. The teacher testified she did not realize in the moment what was happening, and that there was a lot of distraction, noise and chaos. She admitted engaging in the acts of abuse and pleaded "guilty" because she wanted to be accountable for her actions. She told the families in court that she was very sorry, she made poor choices and she was not proud of them. She further testified she was sorry "she let the kids down" and never meant to hurt anyone.

At the hearing, a psychological professional who performed an assessment on the teacher testified that she did not fit the profile of a child abuser. He testified that the teacher may have been disassociated during her actions, which explains why she did not recall everything. He indicated that the teacher took full accountability for her actions, became quite emotional at times, and expressed regret and remorse at her acting out in frustration, impatience and harshness. He testified that it would be more beneficial to the community to place the teacher on probation, and that she would have a high probability of success.

The teacher was sentenced to eight years in prison and appealed that sentence. On appeal, she complained that that the trial court was biased in sentencing her and had knowledge of her that it gained outside of the context of the hearing, as demonstrated by the trial court judge’s statements during sentencing.

In determining whether the trial court judge was improperly biased, the court of appeals examined the following statement that the judge made during sentencing:

“You know I don't want to be here. I respect your husband so much. I've known him for over 25 years. He's a very respectful person. Nobody wants to be in here. I mean, it's terrible. Y'all have — these kids that have been abused and y'all are here supporting the teacher, who, probably 96 percent of her life, has been an A-plus person. She really has…

"My problem is if this was done maybe to one child a little bit, maybe a little bit to two children, but I've got to draw a line somewhere. And I saw seven kids and more. Ugh. It's tough. Because if I ask y'all, y'all would each come up with something different and I'm supposed to make the right decision.

"And I know what a good person you are. I really do. I really think you're a good person…I'm really sorry. I really am. I mean, I know you're remorseful. I know you can't believe what you did. I know your family can't believe it. I know the last person in the world that can believe this is your husband, but I have to do what I think is right so this doesn't happen again. I mean it's — I hate it. I mean, I really do.”

The court noted that it appears that the trial court judge struggled with reconciling the evidence that the teacher had been a good person her entire life with the extensive evidence of her abuse of nonverbal children. It appears that the trial court judge wanted to assess a shorter sentence but felt compelled to sentence the teacher to eight years in prison in light of the evidence of numerous acts of serious abuse.

After reviewing the record, the court of appeals held that any bias on the part of the judge appeared to work in the teacher’s favor. The sentence was not the maximum the trial court could assess. The trial court had ample evidence supporting the teacher’s history of good character, as well as video evidence showing that the teacher committed the actual abuse. The court found that the assessment of the sentence was based on the evidence before the court, and that any bias or lack of impartiality on the part of the judge most likely worked in the teacher’s favor. Therefore, it upheld the sentence set by the trial court.