Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Animal Welfare
Defendant Ordered to Pay Restitution Only for Animals He Mistreated
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Michigan v. Henry, No. 282663, 2009 WL 1314823 (Mich. Ct. App. May 7, 2009), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a defendant convicted of one count of cruelty to animals was only required to pay restitution for the costs of housing and care for the dog that he had been convicted of mistreating, rather than for all of the dogs seized from his home.
Background
The defendant pled guilty to one count of animal cruelty and four counts of owning an unlicensed dog. Id. at *1. He then appealed from the portion of his sentence directing him to pay restitution for the cost of housing and medical care for all the dogs seized from his home. Id.
Arguments
The defendant argued that he should only be responsible for the cost of housing and care for the seized dog that formed the basis for his conviction. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
Michigan's animal cruelty statute, which also governs the imposition of costs and restitution for care and housing of seized animals, provides that the prosecutor can file a civil action requesting that the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the animal protection shelter or a licensed veterinarian before final disposition of the criminal charge, and thereby hold the defendant liable for expenses. Id. (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.50). It further provides that if the prosecutor fails to obtain such an order, "the court may order the defendant to pay the costs of the care, housing, and veterinary medical care for the animal" as part of his sentence for violation of the statute. Id. at *2. The court interpreted that section to mean that costs and restitution imposed under that section (i.e., imposed by the court as part of sentencing) may only be ordered for those animals that a defendant has been convicted of mistreating, and therefore vacated the trial court's restitution award and remanded the issue for recalculation. Id.
The case was decided on May 7, 2009.