Call Us Toll-Free:
877-239-4480

Author Archives: J. Jeffrey Holland

Being a volunteer is no defense to animal cruelty

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on November 11, 2020   |   Comments Off on Being a volunteer is no defense to animal cruelty

The 11th District Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a volunteer cannot be criminally liable for animal cruelty or neglect.

Facts.  Jo Ann Brantweiner was charged with 8 counts of companion animal cruelty involving a total of 97 dogs and cats.  The animals were kept by a nonprofit organization known as the Animal Rescue Center in conditions of extreme filth.  The odor of urine and fecal ammonia caused their eyes and throat to burn.  Many animals were suffering from untreated illnesses, untreated, open wounds, emaciation and dehydration.  One had an exposed tendon.

Brantweiner was one of the main volunteers who cared for the animals. 

Brantweiner took her case to the Court of Appeals, claiming that a volunteer cannot be criminally responsible for animal neglect.  The Court rejected that argument.  A defendant can be a “custodian” or “caretaker” of an animal, subject to animal cruelty laws, even though she was an unpaid volunteer.

Brantweiner was ordered as part of sentencing to pay $85,000 restitution for the care of the animals prior to trial.  The Court of Appeals held that a trial court is not required to warn a defendant about the possibility of being ordered to pay restitution for care of neglected animals prior to trial, and failure to do so does not make the plea involuntary.  [Her restitution order was later reduced to $1,000 due to inability to pay.]

The case was investigated by the Eastlake Police Department with assistance from Lake Humane Society.

The Case citation:  State v. Brantweiner, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2019-L-155, 2019-L-156, 2019-L-157, 2019-L-158, 2019-L-159, 2019-L-160, 2019-L-161, 2019-L-162, 2020-Ohio-5235.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Special sanctions for Ohio animal hoarders

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on October 16, 2020   |   Comments Off on Special sanctions for Ohio animal hoarders
Inside the ARC facility

The 11th District Court of Appeals upheld a number of notable, special sanctions in an animal hoarding case we prosecuted in the Willoughby Municipal Court for the Eastlake Police Department.

Facts:  Defendant Nadine Betchel operated a loosely organized nonprofit animal rescue operation called the Animal Resource Center in Eastlake, Ohio.  Officers executed a search warrant at the property.  Officers found 97 dogs and cats living in conditions of filth with high concentrations of urine and fecal ammonia.  Many were suffering from untreated medical issues.  All were deemed to be suffering unnecessarily by the veterinarian on scene and were removed and impounded at the Lake Humane Society.

Defendant was found guilty of eight counts of companion animal cruelty involving all 97 animals.

Here are the highlights from the Court of Appeals:

(a) A court may impose a lifetime ban on possessing companion animals.
(b) A court may order an offender to reimburse a humane society for costs of care and rehabilitation of victims of companion animal cruelty.
(c) $85,296.10 in restitution is not an unconstitutionally excessive fine, especially where the defendant makes efforts to prevent the humane society from adopting out the animals.
(d) A prosecution for companion animal cruelty does not require a finding of probable cause in an R.C. 959.132 civil forfeiture hearing. The two proceedings are separate and distinct.
(e) A court may only order 18 months in jail as the maximum term of consecutive misdemeanors.  If the trial court errs by ordering a longer term, the sentence may be simply modified and reduced to 18 months by the appellate court.

The Case:  State v. Bechtel, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2019-L-145, 2019-L-146, 2019-L-147, 2019-L-148, 2019-L-149, 2019-L-150, 2019-L-151, 2019-L-152, 2020-Ohio-4889

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Ohio’s Coronavirus “Stay at Home” order and Animal Care

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on March 25, 2020   |   Comments Off on Ohio’s Coronavirus “Stay at Home” order and Animal Care
Image result for dog at home alone

Ohio’s COVID 19 “Stay at Home” order does not prevent you from caring for animals.

The Ohio Department of Health issued an emergency order effective March 24, 2020 requiring all Ohio citizens to shelter at home to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. But there are exceptions:

  • Paragraph 5(e) permits a person to travel in order to provide care for or for the transportation of pets.
  • Paragraph 7 permits travel for the purpose of providing “veterinary care and all healthcare services provided to animals.
  • Paragraph 12(c) specifically permits people to engage in “essential work or activity,”  including “businesses that provide food, shelter, and other necessities of life for animals, including animal shelters, rescues, kennels, and adoption facilities.”  This means that humane societies, dog shelters, animal rescues and animal boarding facilities can continue their important work.

Remember, anyone who keeps, harbors or confines an animal has a legal duty to provide care to prevent unnecessary suffering. Failure to do so could result in criminal penalties. (See O.R.C. 959.13 and 959.131.)

We urge everyone in this time of emergency to use social distancing and to take extra efforts to clean and sanitize to avoid spreading the virus while you care for your pets, and while you continue the vital work of animal rescue.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Courts may order forfeiture of horses in animal cruelty case

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on September 20, 2019   |   Comments Off on Courts may order forfeiture of horses in animal cruelty case

On September 20, 2019, the 11th District Court of Appeals in Ohio held that a sentencing court may order an animal cruelty offender to forfeit horses as a condition of probation without going through the more cumbersome process of a full forfeiture proceeding.

The history of this case is complicated. Defendant Bianca Marcellino was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of animal cruelty for neglecting two horses, which were found to be emaciated and suffering from rain rot. Bianca Marcellino stated in a sworn affidavit that she was the sole owner of the horses. However, just before her sentencing hearing, Bianca’s mother, Karen Marcellino, filed a motion claiming to be the owner in an attempt to block forfeiture of the horses to the Geauga County Humane Society. The Court found that there was no evidence supporting Karen’s claim and ordered the horses to be forfeited.

The horses were rehabilitated by the Humane Society and placed in a new home. 

Karen filed an appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed her case, finding that the case was moot, as the horses were already placed with a new home. State v. Marcellino, 11th Dist. Geauga Nos. 2019-G-0199, 2019-G-0200, 2019-Ohio-3329. Karen filed a motion to reconsider, claiming that there should have been a separate forfeiture proceeding beyond the sentencing in her daughter’s case.

The Court of Appeals denied the motion to reconsider. This appears to be the first appellate case in Ohio holding specifically that a sentencing court may order forfeiture of livestock as a condition of probation under R.C. 959.99(D) without further court proceedings.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Sentencing for Youngstown animal neglect case

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on June 18, 2015   |   Comments Off on Sentencing for Youngstown animal neglect case

State v. Akesha Bowman, a case we prosecuted for Animal Charity, the humane society serving Mahoning County.

Bowman was charged with two counts of companion animal cruelty for keeping her dog “Sassy,” (renamed “Hershey,”) in a cage filled with urine and fecal waste. The cage was too small. Sores were observed on the top of her head from rubbing on the bars. She was also emaciated. Bowman pled no contest and was found guilty on both counts.

The dog was forfeited by the Court, and is now doing well in her new home. (Before and after pictures provided below.)

Judge Robert Milich sentenced Bowman to 90 days in jail for each count, consecutive, for a total of 180 days. Jail time is suspended pending completion of 5 years’ probation, the maximum time allowed by law. During that time, she is prohibited from owning or keeping animals, and is subject to inspections by probation or the humane agent to make sure that she is not keeping animals. She was fined $250 plus costs, plus a $100 probation fee for each case, and must complete 80 hours of community service.

bowman photo

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 days jail time for animal neglect

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on June 11, 2015   |   Comments Off on 100 days jail time for animal neglect

Update on State v. Vicki Cornell, a case we prosecuted along with Prosecutor Rhonda Fisher in the Bryan Municipal Court last year.

Cornell, who operated an organization ironically known as “Skinny Little Buddies Animal Rescue,” was convicted of 24 counts of companion animal cruelty relating to the keeping of approximately 48 dogs.

Today she was found guilty of violating her probation. Judge Francis Gorman imposed 100 days in jail, with credit for 7 days served to date. After serving this jail term, she will be back on probation, with a prohibition against keeping more than 4 personal pets, and random inspections. 500 days in jail remain hanging over her head if there are additional violations.

IMG_1863
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Animal cruelty conviction for drowning opossum

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on May 8, 2015   |   Comments Off on Animal cruelty conviction for drowning opossum

State v. Terry Shkurka, a case we prosecuted for the Cleveland Animal Protective League.

Shkurka admitted trapping an opossum and then holding the cage down in a rubber tub full of water to drown it. He said he has disposed of nuisance animals in this fashion before, and that sometimes he had to put them back in the water to finish the job. Dr. Allison Lash reported that drowning an animal in this fashion could take 5 to 10 minutes, and involves significant suffering.

The Defendant was found guilty of animal cruelty. Shkurka, who had no other criminal record, was required to forfeit the trap, pay a fine of $250 and costs, complete a a humane education course, and remain on active probation for a year. If he fails to complete any condition, he faces 90 days in jail.

tub

Tagged , , , , , ,

Jail time for dog starvation case in Ashland, Ohio

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on May 5, 2015   |   Comments Off on Jail time for dog starvation case in Ashland, Ohio

State v. Michael Johnson, a case we prosecuted at the request of the Ashland County Humane Society, investigated by Ashland County Dog Warden, Tom Kosht.

Johnson was found guilty of two counts of companion animal cruelty for abandoning two dogs in a home without adequate food or water. One died of starvation. The other was dehydrated, but was successfully rehabilitated and has been adopted to a new, loving home.

Johnson tried to put the blame on a man named Louie Thompson who he said was paid $500 cash to care for the animals. However, Johnson could not locate Thompson, and the address he gave for Thompson had not been occupied for some time. Judge John Good told Johnson that he did not believe his story.

Johnson was sentenced to 90 days, the maximum jail sentence for a 2nd degree misdemeanor. He will begin serving that sentence next week. 90 additional days were suspended pending successful completion of 5 years’ probation. During that time, Johnson may not possess and companion animals. He was ordered to pay $500 in fines, $42 in restitution to the veterinarian, $125 restitution to the Ashland County Humane Society, and court costs.

I am pleased to report that Judge Good gave a strong message about the seriousness of animal neglect. It is our hope both Dog Warden Tom Kosht and Judge John Good of the Ashland Municipal Court will receive positive feedback from the community.

fence

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conviction for possession of cockfighting birds

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on May 5, 2015   |   Comments Off on Conviction for possession of cockfighting birds

State v. Filimon Medina, a case we prosecuted for the Medina County SPCA. This is one of the roosters removed from Mr. Medina’s property. It is common practice among cockfighters to remove the combs and wattles of fighting birds so the animals will not bleed excessively in battle, thus weakening them and possibly interfering with their ability to see.While Mr. Medina was not caught in the act of cockfighting, he was charged and convicted in the Medina Municipal Court of two counts of possession of criminal tools for possessing altered roosters, sparring muffs, various drugs and veterinary supplies commonly used in cockfighting, keep pens, tie out ropes and shipping boxes.

Ironically, possession of criminal tools is a 1st degree misdemeanor, while cockfighting is only a misdemeanor of the 4th degree in Ohio. Mr. Medina forfeited all seized birds, will pay a $400 fine plus costs, and may serve 90 days in jail if he violates the terms of his probation, which includes a prohibition against possessing altered birds and random inspections.

Tagged , , , ,

Farm animal cruelty conviction in Montgomery County

Posted by J. Jeffrey Holland on May 5, 2015   |   Comments Off on Farm animal cruelty conviction in Montgomery County

A vivid reminder that all water is not potable. State v. Brenda Moore, a case we prosecuted for the Humane Society of Greater Dayton and the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center.

Brenda Moore was convicted of 7 counts of animal neglect involving 10 goats, one pig, 8 ducks, 13 chickens, 7 rabbits and one dog. The animals were suffering from a variety of conditions, including dehydration, upper respiratory infections, pneumonia, overgrown hooves, coccidiosis and lice.

Moore forfeited all of the animals, and is prohibited from keeping any animals except for two pets for five years. She will be subject during that time to random inspections by the Humane Agent. She faces 90 days in jail if she fails to successfully complete probation. Moore was fined a total of $650 plus court costs.

In our view, limiting animals and providing for random inspections is the best way to rehabilitate an offender like this one, and to prevent future animal neglect. A lengthy jail sentence (90 days is the maximum provided by law) punishes the offender, but puts him or her in a position of collecting more animals immediately upon release without any education or monitoring.

In this case, Moore now lives in an apartment, so she is unable to acquire farm animals.

bad water

Tagged , , , , , , ,