Animal Fighting

Displaying 71 - 80 of 190
Titlesort descending Summary
Ley de Protección para la Fauna en el Estado de Chiapas
Louisiana v. Caillet, Jr.
Twenty- six people where charged with dog fighting in violation of

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

 

14:102.5

for paying a fee to be spectators at a dog fight. They filed a motion to quash, urging that the indictments failed to charge a punishable offense; they were denied the motion. Thereafter, 11 defendants applied for supervisory writs, the appellate court granted the motion to quash, holding that §

 

14:102.5 did not proscribe paying a fee to be a spectator at a dog fight.
MA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Massachusetts laws contain the state's anti-cruelty provisions. Sec. 77 is the operative anti-cruelty statute and provides that whoever overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly beats, mutilates or kills an animal, and whoever uses in a cruel or inhuman manner in a race, game, or contest, or in training, as lure or bait a live animal (except as bait in fishing), or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 7 years or imprisonment for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Other laws prohibit the dyeing of baby chicks, the docking of horse tails, and animal fighting, among other provisions. In 2010, the state made non-medically necessary devocalization of dogs or cats illegal.
Maloney v. State



The State charged defendant with maliciously placing a dog in a pit with another dog and encouraging the dogs to fight, injure, maim, or kill one another. The trial court convicted defendant of cruelty to animals pursuant to

Okla.


Stat. tit. 21, §

 

1685

(1971) and fined defendant. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the court held that

Okla.


Stat. tit. 21, §

 

1682

(1971) was constitutional as applied to the case but reversed and remanded the case because the court determined that the defendant had been improperly convicted under the anti-cruelty statute rather than the dogfighting statute.
McNeely v. U.S.



Defendant McNeely was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act.  On appeal, t




he Court of Appeals, held that the


Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the proscribed conduct, as the defendant here was


required to know that he owned pit bulls in order to be convicted under the Act; and the


prosecutor's improper comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instructions.
MD - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes This Maryland statutory section comprises the state's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the section, "animal" means a living creature except a human being. "Cruelty" is defined as the unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering caused or allowed by an act, omission, or neglect, and includes torture and torment. Agricultural, veterinary, research, and "an activity that may cause unavoidable physical pain to an animal, including food processing, pest elimination, animal training, and hunting. . . " are excluded from the purview of the act.
ME - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Maine statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. The first section of laws occurs under Title 7, Agriculture and Animals. Under these laws, a person commits animal cruelty if he or she kills the animal of another person; kills an animal by an inhumane method; injures, overworks, tortures, torments, abandons or cruelly beats or intentionally mutilates an animal; gives drugs to an animal with an intent to harm the animal; gives poison or alcohol to an animal; or exposes a poison with intent that it be taken by an animal. The neglect component of the statute provides that a person commits cruelty if he or she deprives an animal that the person owns or possesses of necessary sustenance, necessary medical attention, proper shelter, protection from the weather or humanely clean conditions. These acts are then cross-referenced under the criminal provisions of Title 17, which describes the penalties under § 1031. Animal fighting is a class D crime under this section.
Mejia v. State


Rooster fighting case. Testimony from the defendant's witness, a sociologist that argued cockfighting is not generally thought of as an illegal activity, was irrelevant in cruelty to animals conviction. Statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
MI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes (MCL 750.49 - 70) The Michigan Legislature has designed three primary provisions related to cruelty to animals: intentional infliction of pain and suffering, duty to provide care, and anti-animal fighting. The intentional infliction of pain and suffering provision carries the most severe penalties for animal cruelty and a violation is automatically a felony. A violation of the duty to provide care provision is initially a misdemeanor, which becomes a felony for a second or subsequent violation. A violation of the anti-animal fighting provision is either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the severity of conduct related to fighting. The provision does not apply to the lawful killing of livestock or customary animal husbandry of livestock, or lawful fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife control, pest or rodent control, and animal research.
MI - Enforcement - Chapters 760 to 777 Code of Criminal Procedure. This law authorizes private citizens to make arrests.

Pages