Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 6822
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Queen v. State 325 So. 3d 656 (Miss. 2021) Defendant Tommie Queen was convicted of three counts of dog fighting contrary to Mississippi law. The resulting conviction began with in 2017 after a sheriff's officer received a call about dogs barking and possibly fighting. After being dispatched to defendant's property, the officer encountered multiple dogs on chains and dogs that were actively fighting each other. The officer obtained a search warrant and seized numerous items including heavy logging chains, bite sticks, intravenous (IV) bags containing saline, medicine bottles, vials of vitamins, muscle milk and other muscle-building items, several scales, and a treadmill. Approximately five or six badly injured dogs were taken to a veterinarian and humanely euthanized. The veterinarian visited the property the next day and euthanized three more dogs that were seriously injured. Defendant was convicted on three of the nine indicted counts of animal fighting and sentenced to three years on each count to run consecutively. On appeal here, defendant raised three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by tendering Kyle Held as an expert in the field of animal cruelty and dog fighting; (2) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Queen of dog fighting; and (3) whether the trial court erred by denying Queen's motion to recuse. As to the first issue on qualification of the expert witness, the proffered expert, Kyle Held, had been employed by the ASPCA for approximately ten years as the director of investigations. Not only was Held certified by the National Animal Control Association, but he had investigated dog fighting operations "probably a few hundred" times according to his testimony. This included the largest organized dog fighting seizure in history. Moreover, Held indicated he testified in approximately 100 animal cruelty or animal fighting cases and has been qualified as an expert six times in previous dog fighting cases. While defendant argued that Held should not be qualified as an expert because he did not hold any college degrees, this court found that argument without merit. Defendant's second argument challenged the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to support conviction. In particular, defendant notes that the evidence was only circumstantial and no direct evidence showed that defendant was present when the dogs were fighting and injured. However, the court noted that defendant did not dispute that he was the owner of the property where the dogs were recovered (and over 40 other dogs found) and evidence of dog fighting (heavy logging chains, bite sticks, intravenous bags, scales, weight gain powders, treadmills, etc.) were found there. Based on Held's observations, training, and experience, Queen's property was used as a dog-fighting training yard. Further, the veterinarian who performed euthanasia on the dogs testified that there were bite wounds consistent with dog fighting This Court observed that it previously recognized that things like treadmills, dietary supplements, and break sticks of indicative of dog fighting enterprises. Finally, the way the dogs were tied out in the yard with the chains and minimal space between the dogs is “typical on almost every yard that [he] had been on” and was indicative of dog fighting training. Defendant's last contention is that the trial court erred by denying his motion for recusal because Judge Debra Blackwell was previously employed as an assistant attorney general in the district where defendant's indictment was returned. The court found no evidence that created a reasonable doubt as to the validity of the presumption that Judge Blackwell was both qualified and unbiased. Defendant's convictions and sentences were affirmed. Case
Queensland - Food Production - Agriculture Standards Act Act No. 36 The main objective of the Act is to provide for the making of standards about agriculture by establishing an administrative framework for the making of standards by the chief executive and by providing appropriate powers to ensure the standards are complied with. This Act was reprinted as at 1 October 2002. The reprint shows the law as amended by all amendments that commenced on or before that day and incorporates all necessary consequential amendments, whether of punctuation, numbering or another kind. Statute
CA - Assistance Animal - California Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.2, 600.5, West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 54 - 55.32; West's Ann.Cal.Educ.Code § 39839; West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 30850 - 30854; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121680; Cal. Vehicle Code § 21963; West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 365.5 - .7; West's Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 12553 - 12554; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122317 - 122319.5 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. Statute
WA - Facility dog - 10.52.110. Courthouse facility dog program RCW 10.52.110 WA ST 10.52.110 This 2019 law allows courts to permit a courthouse facility dog by witnesses in any judicial proceeding. Statute
Scotland - Wildlife - Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 2004 asp 6 This Act makes amendments to the protection of wildlife under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981, and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in respect of Scotland. Wild animal protection is extended to include reckless as well as intentional acts. The Act also makes it an offence to disturb or harass a dolphin, whale or basking shark, and amends the provisions for enforcement. Statute
FL - Initiatives - Florida Amendment Article X Section 19 (pregnant pigs) Florida Amendment Article X Section 19 (2002) (note: adopted as Section 21) This ballot proposal addresses the inhumane treatment of animals, specifically, pregnant pigs. To prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, and an effective date. This measure passed in the November 2002 election with 54% of the vote. Statute
WV - Hunting - § 20-2-5a. Forfeiture by person causing injury, death or destruction W. Va. Code, § 20-2-5a WV ST § 20-2-5a Under this statute, defendants must pay an additional monetary penalty in the form of a "replacement cost" for the unlawful killing of certain listed species ($5,000 for each bald or golden eagle killed). If two defendants were implicated in the killing, each must pay the full penalty. Statute
LA - Feral pigs - § 102.28. Transporting live feral swine prohibited; penalties LSA-R.S. 14:102.28 LA R.S. 14:102.28 This 2018 Louisiana law makes it unlawful to transport live feral swine by any person not in possession of proof of registration as a feral swine authorized transporter with the Louisiana Board of Animal Health within the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than nine hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. Note that a subsection states, "[t]he provisions of this Section shall not apply to “Uncle Earl's Hog Dog Trials”' Statute
White v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company 106 A.3d 1159 (N.H., 2014) 167 N.H. 153 (2014) This is an appeal brought by Susan and Peter White to a declaratory judgment that her son, Charles Matthews, was not covered under Susan's homeowner's insurance policy with the respondent.The incident that led to this case involved Matthews' dog causing injury to Susan while at the home covered by the policy. The policy covered the insurer and residents of their home who are relatives, so Susan attempted to collect from Vermont Mutual for the damage done by the dog. However, her claim was denied because Matthews was deemed to not be a resident of the home. This court affirms. Case
US - Wolf - Reinstatement of Protections for the Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains FWS–R6–ES–2008–008; 92220–1113–0000; C6

Reinstates the listing of the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains gray wolf populations in accordance with court orders.

Administrative

Pages