Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Court Affirms a Defendant's Conviction of Cruelty to Animals

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In City of Columbus v. Bishop, No. 08AP-300, 2008 WL 5423342 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2008), the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's conviction of cruelty to animals after finding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in overruling the defendant's hearsay objections or in instructing the jury on the applicable mental state required to sustain a conviction.

Background

The defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals in violation of Columbus City Code 2327.15(A) after he and another person allegedly stabbed a dog multiple times. Id. at *1. Officers had been called the defendant's home to investigate a domestic dispute, and just before leaving the scene, the officers heard people inside the defendant's home screaming "they are killing the dog." Id. Upon entering the residence, officers saw the defendant holding a dog down while another person stood over the dog with a bloody knife. Id. The dog had several lacerations which appeared to have been caused by the knife. Id. At trial, the defendant objected to the officers' testimony that they heard screaming coming from inside the house, but his hearsay objection was overruled. Id. at *2. He subsequently appealed the conviction on numerous grounds. Id. at *1-2.

Arguments

The defendant argued that the trial court erred in overruling his hearsay objection to the officers' testimony, and that it "violated his due process right to fair notice of the criminal charges he faced by permitting the city to amend its complaint at the close of all the evidence and instructing the jury that it could find him guilty based upon elements not alleged in the amended complaint." Id. at *2, *4. He also argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the applicable mens rea requirement, and that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at *7.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found that the officers' testimony fell under the excited utterances exception to the hearsay rule, Evid. R. 803(2), so the defendant's hearsay objection had been properly overruled. Id. at *2-3. The court also explained that "[p]ursuant to Crim.R. 7(D), a court may, before, during, or after a trial, allow the State to amend an indictment, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged," and thus held that the trial court had not erred in allowing the city to amend its complaint after the close of all the evidence. Id. at *5. Although it agreed that the jury instructions "could have more clearly stated that recklessly was the applicable mens rea," the court found that the instructions did not constitute plain error requiring reversal, and therefore rejected those arguments as well. Id. at *6-7. The court further concluded that the defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and therefore affirmed the conviction. Id. at *10-11.

The case was decided on December 31, 2008.