The attorney teaching Penal Code to the new recruits was asked a question regarding Section 42.09, specifically 42.09(a)(5) which makes it an offense to administer points to a livestock animal other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another with legal authority or consent. The question: what do you charge is the suspect poisons cattle, horses, etc.? Criminal Mischief was the principle suggestion. Any ideas what other offense might apply. The definition of animal in Section 42.092 clearly excludes cattle, horses, etc.

Janette A

Yes, criminal mischief.

I can see Criminal Mischief. I suppose if the poison caused "unjustifiable pain or suffering," you could try and travel under 42.09(a)(1) (torture of livestock animal). It appears to carry the same punishment scheme as 42.09(a)(5).

What I would like to know is what the Legislature's rationale for excluding those particular types of livestock animals? It doesn't make much sense.

Janette A

I'd love to know the rationale for that as well. Especially since the section would apply to "ponies" but not to "horses." I've tried to think of a logical distinction, but I'm at a loss.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J Ansolabehere:
What I would like to know is what the Legislature's rationale for excluding those particular types of livestock animals? It doesn't make much sense.

Janette A

---

Answer: Because that's how the livestock owners wanted it when that statute included death or SBI to their "property", and that's how it stayed in the new version.

It doesn't make sense to me either, but that's your answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JSFC:
I'd love to know the rationale for that as well. Especially since the section would apply to "ponies" but not to "horses." I've tried to think of a logical distinction, but I'm at a loss.

---

Don't try combining logic and legislation, you'll just hurt yourself.

What happened was, when the statute got split between livestock and non-livestock, the old language was left in new PC 42.09(a)(5), but a new definition of "livestock" was added in (b)(5) that included ponies (along with several other animals not listed in (a)(5)). However, the livestock owners did not want the old language changed, so there it stayed.

And that, my friends, is how sausage gets made.

I suspect that the livestock industry is more worried about PETA and Greenpeace than they are crazies killing cows. Now, you start stealing cows and I bet you'd find them wanting to make theft of a cow a first degree felony rather than using the value ladder. Just like the shopping cart people.

Fact is, some ways of handling livestock sound pretty scary in the abstract. For example, turning bull calves into steers--I learned from one of our law school classmates that a rubber band is wrapped tightly around the "extra parts" and that those parts fall off in a few days. Who would think about trying to fix their dog that way? Nevertheless, that's how they do it with cattle. But can't you see some city person moving out the country and then raising a ruckus about cruel gelding practices violating the Penal Code? That seems to be where the agri-folk were coming from.

And now for something completely different, how about Criminal Trespass w/a deadly weapon--assuming the livestock was appropriately fenced/enclosed?