Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Animal Welfare
Court Rejects Challenge of Humane Society Officer's Authority
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Ohio v. Mangold, No. 2008-P-0033, 2008 WL 5147448 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2008), the Ohio Court of Appeals held that a Humane Society officer had not acted without authority or in violation of state law in conducting an investigation of a defendant or testifying as an expert witness at his trial for animal cruelty, and therefore affirmed the defendant's conviction.
Background
Responding to a citizen complaint, a Humane Society officer investigated the defendant's farm and noticed several malnourished cows on his property. Id. at *1. After obtaining a search warrant, the officer and police detectives investigated further and found several malnourished cows and a few dead calves on the property. Id. at *2. The cows were removed from the defendant's property, and the defendant was charged with and convicted of animal cruelty. Id. at *2-4. He appealed from the conviction, alleging that the Humane Society officer had acted without authority and in violation of state law, but it was unclear what conduct he was attempting to challenge. Id. at *5.
Analysis and Holdings
The court attempted to analyze the defendant's appeal, but noted that he had failed to include any arguments or references to the record to support his asserted errors, and that his claims were "in general vague and difficult to understand." Id. He basically asserted that the Humane Society officer had acted without authority, but the court acknowledged that they were "at a complete loss to understand what appellant is attempting to argue." Id. He gave no indication what conduct he was referring to (the officer's investigation, removal of the cows, or testifying as an expert at trial), and the court stated that it would not speculate as to the basis of his assertion. Id. Moreover, there was no indication that the officer had acted without authority in any regard. Id. The court also noted that the officer had no legal duty to discuss the situation with the defendant before she undertook her investigation. Id. The defendant's other allegations were either irrelevant or had not been raised prior to appeal and were thus waived, so the court affirmed his conviction. Id. at *6-9.
The case was decided on December 5, 2008.