|
Trimble v. State |
In this Indiana case, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of cruelty to an animal and harboring a non-immunized dog. On rehearing, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant abandoned or neglected dog left in his care, so as to support conviction for cruelty to an animal. The court held that the evidence of Butchie's starved appearance, injured leg, and frost bitten extremities was sufficient to allow the trial judge to discount Trimble's testimony and infer that Trimble was responsible for feeding and caring for Butchie, and that he failed to do so.
|
|
TThe Regulation and Protection of Animals Kept for Companionship: A Critical Analysis and Comparative Perspective (Appendix 2 |
This Appendix accompanies the thesis from Malta entitled, "The Regulation and Protection of Animals Kept for Companionship: A Critical Analysis and Comparative Perspective."
|
|
Turner v Cole |
RSPCA officers found a horse belonging to the applicant on the applicant's property and, after preparing the horse for transport, had to euthanise the animal when it collapsed. The applicant was convicted of failing to feed a horse which led to its serious disablement and eventual euthanisation. The applicant was unsuccessful on all issues on appeal and was liable for a fine of $4000 and prevention from owning 20 or more horses for five years.
|
|
TX - Assault, sexual of animal - § 21.09. Bestiality |
This law represents Texas' prohibition on bestiality, which was enacted in 2017. A person commits this offense if he or she engages in listed contact with an animal. Additionally, a person violates this law if he or she: possesses or provides an animal for such purpose; organizes, promotes or participates in such conduct; permits such conduct at premises under his or her control; engages in conduct listed described in the presence of a child younger than 18 years of age; or advertises, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal with the intent that the animal be used in this state for conduct described. Violation is a state jail felony unless the conduct is done in the presence of a child younger than 18 or the conduct results in serious bodily injury or death of the animal; the offense is a felony of the second degree in those cases. |
|
TX - Counseling - § 54.0407. Cruelty to Animals: Counseling Required. |
For juveniles convicted under the Texas criminal animal cruelty statute (found at Tex. Penal Code § 42.09), psychological counseling is required. |
|
TX - Cruelty - Chapter 821. Treatment and Disposition of Animals. |
This Texas section addresses the treatment of animals and disposition of cruelly treated animals. |
|
TX - Cruelty - Chapter 829. Animal Control Officer Training |
This chapter concerns the appointment of animal control officers in Texas. The chapter requires that an animal control officer complete training, which includes at least a 12-hour basic animal control course and subsequent continuing education. |
|
TX - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These comprise Texas' anti-cruelty laws. Texas has laws that prohibit cruelty to both livestock (sec. 42.09) and non-livestock animals (sec. 42.092). Both laws requires a scienter of intentionally or knowingly, and enumerate limited defenses. "Animal" means a domesticated living creature and wild living creature previously captured but does not include an uncaptured wild creature. Also included is Texas animal fighting provision, which criminalizes being a spectator at an animal fighting exhibition among other things. In 2011, Texas enacted a law prohibiting cockfighting. |
|
TX - Fighting - § 42.10. Dog Fighting. |
Texas criminal statute that prohibits dog fighting. Actions ranging from causing a dog to fight with another to attending a dog fight as a spectator are prohibited. To constitute an offense, one must demonstrate the requisite intent of intentionally or knowingly. |
|
U.S. v. Stevens |
Defendant was convicted of violating statute prohibiting the commercial creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional for being substantially overbroad: it did not require the depicted conduct to be cruel, extended to depictions of conduct that were only illegal in the State in which the creation, sale, or possession occurred, and because the exceptions clause did not substantially narrow the statute's reach. (2011 note:
18 U.S.C. § 48
was amended following this ruling in late 2010).
|
