Animal Fighting

Displaying 31 - 40 of 190
Titlesort descending Summary
CO - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes This Colorado section contains the anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal. A person commits aggravated cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal. Cruelty to animals is a class 1 misdemeanor and aggravated cruelty or a second conviction of animal cruelty is class 6 felony. This section also prohibits animal fighting (not limited to certain species such as dogs or chickens). Violation of this law results in a class 5 felony. This section also makes it illegal to own a dangerous dog and "tamper" with livestock.
Commonwealth v. Baumgartner Appellant Charles Baumgartner was charged and convicted of animal fighting for amusement or gain as a result of an incident that occurred on March 9, 2017. Baumgartner brought his white pit pull named "Menace" to fight a pit bull that belonged to Adam Aviles. Police learned of the dog fight after being informed a video of the fight had been uploaded to social media. Baumgartner was ultimately charged with animal fighting and assaulting Mr. Aviles, but was convicted by jury only of animal fighting. On appeal, Baumgartner contends that his conviction should be set aside because the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence of amusement or gain as required by statute. As a matter of first impression, this Court considered the term "amusement or gain" as an element of the animal fighting, which is undefined in the anti-cruelty laws. The court found that no cases or other jurisdiction defines the term with respect to animal fighting, and thus, under principles of statutory interpretation, relies on the common usage and dictionary definitions. The court found that there was sufficient evidence admitted a trial for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Baumgartner allowed his dog to engage in animal fighting for amusement or gain, i.e., for “pleasurable diversion” or “advantage acquired or increased.” The Court concluded that Baumgartner facilitated the dog fight as a means of retribution against Aviles for a prior dog fighting incident. Therefore, his motive was personal gain. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Baumgartner’s conviction. Judge Pellegrini dissented stating that she does not believe that retribution is the type of amusement or gain within the meaning of the statute. She interprets the statute as outlawing animal fighting as a sport rather than all animal fights.
Commonwealth v. Craven


Defendants who were charged with cruelty to animals and criminal conspiracy for their attendance at a dogfight as spectators challenged the constitutionality of the dogfighting statute. The trial court found that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that since the statute only creates criminal liability for a person's conscious decision to attend a dogfight, it is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
Commonwealth v. Craven



The issue before the Court in this consolidated appeal was whether the trial court properly determined that 18 Pa.C.S. § 5511(h.1)(6), which criminalizes an individual's attendance at an animal fight "as a spectator," is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.  Specifically, appellees contended that the statute criminalized "mere presence" at a dog fight.  The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the evidence showed appellees were active spectators at the fight (as seen in the videotape evidence).  The court concluded that the statute is constitutionally sound, thereby reversing the lower court's decision that the statute imposed strict liability on mere presence.
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez
Appellant was convicted of cruelty to animals for cockfighting. On appeal, appellant claimed that the delegation of police power to animal welfare agents was unconstitutional. The court found that appellant was without standing to complain because he failed to show an injury. Appellant also argued that the animal fighting statute was preempted by a federal statute,

7 U.S.C.S. §

 

2156.

The court disagreed. Finally, appellant asserted that §

 

5511 was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court determined that appellant lacked standing to challenge the statute's

overbreadth.
Connecticut General Statutes: Title 56: Sections 6480 - 6482n Sections 6480-6482 of Title 56 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers offences against public policy. pecifically, the statutes cover following topics: animal fighting, penalty for attending a fight, and unlawful exhibition of sport for gain.
Costa Rica- Animal Fighting - Cock Fighting
CT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws


This Connecticut section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions.  Any person who overdrives, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, deprives of necessary sustenance, mutilates or cruelly beats or kills or unjustifiably injures


any animal


, or fails to give an animal in his or her custody proper care, among other things shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both; a subsequent offense is a Class D felony.  Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal is also guilty of a Class D felony. Animal fighting is also prohibited under this section as a Class D felony.  Connecticut has a cruelty to poultry law that provides that any crate or other container used for the purpose of transporting, shipping or holding for sale any live poultry must be in a sanitary condition with sufficient ventilation and warmth to prevent unnecessary suffering.  Other provisions include laws against dyeing chicks and rabbits, docking horses' tails, and the use of animals, birds, or reptiles to solicit money.
DC - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes This D.C. statutory section comprises the anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Whoever knowingly overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly chains, cruelly beats or mutilates, any animal, or knowingly causes such acts, or one who unnecessarily fails to provide proper food, drink, air, light, space, veterinary care, shelter, or protection from the weather, faces imprisonment up to180 days, or a fine of $250, or both. Actions that result in serious bodily injury or death to the animal result in felony prosecution with imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine of $25,000, or both. "Animal" is defined by statute as all living and sentient creatures (human beings excepted). This section also prohibits animal fighting as either a felony (i.e., wagering or conducting the fight) or a misdemeanor (knowingly being present).
DE - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Delaware sections comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Delaware's anti-cruelty section provides that cruelty to animals is when a person intentionally or recklessly subjects any animal (excluding fish, crustacea or molluska) to cruel mistreatment, cruel neglect, or kills or injures any animal belonging to another person. Actively engaging in animal fighting activities is a class F felony while being a spectator at a fight is a class A misdemeanor.

Pages