Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Civil Protection Order Obtained against Defendant Who Killed Neighbors' Dog

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Meyers v. Sparrow, No. 08-CA-25, 2009-Ohio-945, 2009 WL 533057 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2009), the Ohio Court of Appeals held that evidence supported a trial court's grant of a civil protection order against a defendant who threatened the plaintiffs and unlawfully killed their dog.

Background

Defendant shot and killed his neighbors' dog while it was on his property, despite testifying that the dog had been on his property on prior occasions and was never aggressive towards him. Id. at *1. Witnesses testified that he told them he had killed several dogs, stating that he could kill any dog that came on his property, that he had attempted to run over other neighborhood dogs, and that he threatened the plaintiff-neighbor with a knife. Id. at *2. The plaintiffs obtained a civil protection order against him, and he challenged the order on several grounds. Id. at *2-3.

Arguments

Defendant argued that the evidence was inadequate to support the civil protection order, that he was justified in killing the plaintiffs' dog, and that the trial court erred in failing to permit additional evidence after the magistrate issued a decision. Id. at *3, *6-7.

Analysis and Holdings

Ohio's menacing-by-stalking statute, R.C. 2903.211, provides that "[n]o person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person." Id. at *4. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the defendant had done just that-he engaged in a pattern of conduct including shooting the plaintiffs' dog and threatening one of them with a knife, inflicting mental distress on the plaintiffs. Id. at *4-5. The court also concluded that the defendant was not legally justified in killing the plaintiffs' dog because, by his own admission, the dog had not been aggressive towards him. Id. at *6. Lastly, the court rejected the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in refusing to hear additional evidence after the magistrate's decision because the court is not required to do so unless the objecting party demonstrates that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have produced the evidence previously. Id. at *7-8.

The case was decided on February 27, 2009.