Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Dan | 20 P.3d 829 (Or. 2001) | 172 Or.App. 645 (Or. 2001) |
This is an appeal of a circuit court decision in an aggravated animal abuse case. A defendant was convicted in circuit court of aggravated animal abuse and other charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's testimony that he loved his children more than the dog he shot was not evidence of his character, thus the evidence offered by the state in rebuttal (that the defendant assaulted his spouse) was not admissible and not harmless error by the trial court. |
Case |
| Northern Ireland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 | 2011 Chapter 15 | This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals, and prohibits facilitating, attending or participating in hare coursing events. | Statute | |
| WY - Impound - § 33-30-215. Disposition of unclaimed animals in custody of veterinarians; | W. S. 1977 § 33-30-215 | WY ST § 33-30-215 | This Wyoming statute states that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding, or other care, which is then unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten days after written notice is given to the owner at his or her last known address, shall be deemed to be abandoned. It may then be turned over to the nearest humane society or dog pound in the area where it may be disposed of as the shelter sees fit. | Statute |
| SC - Hunting, Internet - § 50-11-95. Computer-assisted remote hunting and remote hunting | Code 1976 § 50-11-95 | SD ST § 50-11-95 | This statute makes it illegal to establish or operate computer-assisted remote hunting facilities in South Carolina. It is also illegal to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if either the animal hunted, or any device, equipment, or software to remotely control the firearm is located in this State. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined at least $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to one year. | Statute |
| I.B. Sirmans v. State | 534 S.E.2d 862(Ga.App.,2000) | 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2440 |
Defendant was convicted of four counts of animal cruelty and one count of simple assault. The portion of the sentence depriving defendant of animals which the State failed to demonstrate were abused vacated and case remanded; judgment affirmed in all other respects because the motion to suppress was properly denied, and defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to sever the trial. |
Case |
| State v. Scott | 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 561 | The appellant pled guilty to one count of animal fighting, one count of cruelty to animals, and one count of keeping unvaccinated dogs, and asked for probation. The trial court denied the appellants request for probation and sentenced him to incarceration. The appellant challenged the trial court's ruling, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny probation, stating that the heinous nature of the crimes warranted incarceration. | Case | |
| MD - Immunity - § 5-614. Veterinary aid, care or assistance | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 5-614 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 5-614 | This law gives immunity to certain licensed professionals including veterinarians, medical care licensees, first responders, and certain local government employees for providing veterinary aid, care, or assistance (without a charging a fee) to animals at the scene of an emergency or in transit to a veterinary facility. The listed persons under the statute are not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any veterinary aid, care, or assistance to an animal where the owner or custodian of the animal is not available to grant permission. | Statute |
| Justice v. State | 532 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. App. 2017) | 2017 WL 4697920 (Tex. App. Oct. 19, 2017) | In this Texas appeal, defendant Brent Justice contends that his conviction for a single count of cruelty to a nonlivestock animal was based on insufficient evidence. The incident stemmed from defendant's filming of his co-defendant, Ashley Richards, torturing and killing of a newly-weaned puppy. Justice and Richards ran an escort business named "Bad Gurls Entertainment" that focused on the production and distribution of animal "crush" videos (fetish videos involving the stomping, torturing, and killing of various kinds of animals in a prolonged manner). The evidence that supported the conviction involved the confessions of both perpetrators and the video of the puppy being tortured and ultimately killed. On appeal, defendant argues that he cannot be found guilty since was not the principal involved in the offense. This court was unconvinced, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support a state jail felony since "[t]here is no shortage of evidence that appellant aided Richards in her cruelty," including handing Richards the knife and filming the killing. The one issue in defendant's "hybrid" pro se and represented brief on appeal that the court granted was related to a finding that defendant used a "deadly weapon." After the filing of initial briefs, the Court of Criminal Appeals in Prichard v. State, No. PD-0712-16, --- S.W.3d ---, 2017 WL 2791524 (Tex. Crim. App. June 28, 2017), held that “a deadly weapon finding is disallowed when the recipient or victim is nonhuman.” Thus, in the case at hand, the court deleted the deadly weapon finding since it was directed at the puppy rather than a human. The case was remanded for a new hearing on punishment only since the conviction was affirmed for a state jail felony. | Case |
| VT - Hunting - § 4708. Interference with hunting, fishing or trapping | 10 V.S.A. § 4708 | VT ST T 10 § 4708 | This Vermont law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. The law states that a person shall not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of fish or wild animals. This includes things like tampering with traps, nets, baits, or firearms; by placing himself or herself in a position, for the purpose of interfering, that hinders or prevents hunting, trapping, or fishing; or by engaging in an activity, for the purpose of interfering, that drives, harasses, disturbs, or is likely to disturb wildlife or fish. | Statute |
| OK - Dangerous dog - § 44. Definitions | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 44 | OK ST T. 4 § 44 | This Oklahoma statute provides the definitions related to dangerous dog laws in the state, including dangerous dog, potentially dangerous dog, severe injury, and owner, among others. | Statute |