Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Court Admits Testimony on Defendant's Reason for Shooting a Dog

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Washington v. Sheppard, No. 60405-8-I, 2008 WL 5128189 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2008), the Washington Court of Appeals held that witnesses' testimony regarding the reason for a defendant's shooting of a dog was not impermissible opinion testimony of guilt, but had instead been offered to show his inconsistent position and undermine his credibility; therefore, the court affirmed his animal cruelty conviction.

Background

Defendant shot his neighbor's son's dog, and told the investigating animal control officer that he had mistaken the dog for another dog which had impregnated his dog. Id. at *1. He was charged with animal cruelty in the first degree, and he moved to limit witness testimony to personal observations. Id. He specifically requested the court to prohibit the animal control officer from offering her opinion of when it would be lawful to shoot a dog, arguing that her testimony was inadmissible because he was unaware that he was under investigation when he told her he had shot the dog because he believed it had impregnated his dog. Id. The court denied his request and ruled that the officer's testimony was admissible. Id. At trial, the defendant argued that he shot the dog because it had attacked the birds his family breeds and sells, and therefore his actions were justified by law. Id. at *2. However, the animal control officer testified about his statements that he had shot the dog because he thought it was the dog that had impregnated his own dog. Id. The dog's owner also testified that the defendant told him the same thing. Id. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to 20 days in jail, and he appealed. Id. at *3.

Arguments

Defendant argued that the testimony of the dog owner and the animal control officer regarding his reason for shooting the dog was impermissible opinion testimony of guilt. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court held that because the defendant had failed to object to the dog owner's testimony at trial and to the officer's testimony until redirect examination, he had failed to preserve the issue for appeal. Id. The court further concluded that the testimony was offered to show that the defendant was taking an inconsistent position at trial and to undermine his credibility, rather than to show guilt. Id. at *4. Moreover, the court found that even if the testimony should have been excluded, it resulted in harmless error because the jury had been properly instructed on the justification defense, and therefore the court affirmed the conviction. Id.

The case was decided on December 8, 2008.