Has anyone encountered (or heard of) any animal cruelty cases where the perpetrator was either not prosecuted or not convicted because of problems with or limitations of (or perceived problems with or limitations of) the Texas Anti-Cruelty statute?

Areas which I've heard described as problems with or limitations of the statute include: (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; (4) exclusion of farm animals in certain subsections seems unnecessary given exception for farming practices; and (5) statute requires intentional or knowing act which standards are hard to prove, so appears courts have allowed circumstantial evidence to prove mens rea.