I have been asked to draft a CLE paper regarding the need to amend the Texas animal cruelty statute. I have been told that prosecutors have had difficulty pursuing some animal cruelty cases because of the statute's vagueness. Please share with me any of your experiences and opinions in this regard. Also feel free to contact me by telephone 713-751-1600.

Thank you to the one district attorney who contacted me by telephone. Isn't there anyone else who will share their experiences and opinions with me?

Please post here or telephone 713-751-1600 x1351. Your assistance will be rewarded by a baked good of some sort, if necessary!

Thanks,
Laney

I haven't responded because I don't understand how the statute is vague? I have prosecuted cases under the statute and have not had a problem with the current wording.

Thank you for your message, Mr. Alpert:

Areas which I've heard could use revision are: (1) no definition of torture -- juries don't know just how terrible or prolonged an act of cruelty must be before it's considered torture; (2) statute does not protect unowned animals from being killed, seriously injured, or poisoned -- issues seem to arise like in the Waco Queso the cat case where a "stray" is partially cared for but not necessarily "owned," so no conviction; (3) statute allows the owner of an animal to kill it, seriously injure it, or poison it; and (4) exclusion of farm animals in certain subsections seems unnecessary given exception for farming practices. Maybe also the intent requirement? (Statute requires intentionally or knowingly which are hard standards to prove, so appears courts have allowed circumstantial evidence to prove mens rea.)

There appear to be many cases like the Queso the cat case where the prosecutor can pursue conviction for torture or killing of someone else's animal, but can't prove belonged to someone else and torture too ambiguous. In a case where kittens fed by someone else (but not necessarily owned), man stomped on kittens killing them fairly quickly -- because of fairly quick death, jury not convinced of torture. I just think it's a shame that a case like that falls through the cracks.

Let me know what you think. Thanks, Laney

Laney, Bell County had a case where the owner of a puppy, irritated because the puppy kept trying to play with him while he was mowing the yard, lifted the mower and instantly kllied the dog. No prosecution because it was his own animal and there was no evidence that the death of the animal was other than instantaneous. I'm not sure how you would reword the statute other than to make it an offense to kill an animal without some justification.

Or we could take a page from the Left Coast and change the law to clarify that none of us "own" our pets, but are merely their "caretakers" because animals/pets have rights, too ...

I'm seeing a need for a new law: Pet Protective Orders. It's time has come. Contact Shannon Edmonds, the legislative attorney for TDCAA, with your ideas.

So would animal protective orders go in the penal code or in the family code? What's next - "petimony" in divorces?

The newspaper says that many soldiers are being deployed and leaving their pets at shelters. With just one small legislative change, those Bell County prosecutors could stay very busy with Criminal Nonsupport(Pet) orders!

Don't you guys think you are getting a little catty on this subject?

Stop dogging us.

Juries can and should be able to draw their own conclusions about the meaning of "torture" or "in a cruel manner" in a particular case. If the phrases had been declared unconstitutionally vague, then there would be problem. Killing one's own by means other than torture is acceptable, though I suppose (a)(5) could stand some clarification. I do not think bringing "recklessly" into the mix would change much of anything one way or the other, and in any event that mental state should not be applied to all 10 means of committing the offense. Most of the conduct prosecuted under this statute is pretty clean cut, i.e., very few people would argue that it should not be considered unlawful. I am not familiar with Queso, but anytime you use one instance to tinker with a statute you are asking for trouble.

Of course, you're likely aware of the 74-year-old lady in Bell County who wanted to take her Akita to the pound, but couldn't get it in the car. She tied it to her rear bumper with the thought of "idling" some two miles to the pound. The dog was dragged and so severely injured that it had to be put down. Her offense was cruel "transport," because of the lack of intent (although IQ is not mentioned in the statute). I am aware of an internet petition from around the country to prosecute this lady "to the fullest extent of the law." One comment from one of the thousands who signed on is to "kill her." I have received scores of letters from around the country.The case is currently pending. Strange that we have not had a similar outcry for the murderer of a woman whose body was abandoned in the county that same week.

As to the soldiers deploying, our local humane shelters are overflowing, and there is an active effort to recruit foster owners until the troops return. Does that require a power of attorney so that vet services may be properly utilized?

Seriously, I try to maintain a good relationship with the local humane organizations, and find that they can understand legal problems when it comes to animal cruelty cases, even though they may not like the outcome. The fact that some animal cruelty offenses got bumped up to felony status reflects the seriousness of these offenses. Maybe what is "cruel" needs to be broadened to accommodate injury to an animal for other than a legitimate reason (predator, self-defense, etc.)

FYI, here's a recently filed animal cruelty bill: HB 1139

Martin, you gave me a good chuckle when you remarked (accurately) that "anytime you use one instance to tinker with a statute you are asking for trouble." Since that is the basis for 75% of all the legislation filed in the criminal justice area, what does that tell you about those bills??

Shannon: This statute would indeed become a model of clarity with the proposed amendment. There are a lot of us wild living creatures out here that are not animals, and it is should be ok to torture anything so long as it is done in the name of fishing, hunting, or trapping and is generally accepted. Is there solid proof its only 75%, seems like it could be higher.

For the latest on how animal abusers are punished, go to http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1798560

20 pages? By 10 and 11-year-olds?

Perhaps the court could make reading those "reports" a condition of probation for some other transgressor -- or would that qualify as cruel and unusual punishment?

How do the proposed changes to HB 1119 help us?

John: Thanks for your e-mail and your interest in this topic. HB 1119 seeks to amend the civil seizure laws rather than the cruelty statute. HB 1119 is sponsored by the Texas Humane Legislation Network (www.thln.com) and would make needed revisions to the civil seizure laws. I'm sure you already know this, but an animal can be seized from its owner though the owner is not charged with a violation of the penal statute (Section 42.09). Many humane investigators I've spoken with are just as concerned (or maybe more concerned) with rescuing the abused animal from the abusive environment as with criminally prosecuting the perpetrator. Of course, many times the owner is also charged with criminal cruelty after the animals are rescued.

The THLN folks were nice enough to run this bill by us before the session started to make sure we didn't have any issues with it. If some problem does jump out at you, let me know and I will pass it along to them.

Shannon