Call Us Toll-Free:
877-239-4480

animal cruelty sentencing

House Bill 24 Establishes Care Bond & Restitution for Livestock Cruelty Cases

Posted by DanaMarie Pannella on December 31, 2020   |   Comments Off on House Bill 24 Establishes Care Bond & Restitution for Livestock Cruelty Cases

House Bill 24 was signed by Governor DeWine on December 29, 2020. This lengthy bill goes into effect in 90 days. Most critically, HB 24 creates “care bond” hearings for livestock and allows courts to order convicted offenders to pay restitution for the care of those animals.

Care bond/cost of care laws help prevent humane societies and other law enforcement from incurring debilitating costs in animal cruelty cases and can help rescued animals find their new homes sooner, saving both money and animal lives.

Under current Ohio law, the seizure of a companion animal (generally cats, dogs, and some other animals kept in a residential dwelling) results in a judicial hearing within 10 days of seizure to determine whether the officer had probable cause to seize the companion animal, and if so, the amount of money (bond) necessary for the animal owner to pay for that companion animal’s care while it is impounded pending trial. If the owner does not pay the care bond, the animal may be forfeited to the impounding agency.

Livestock are not currently subject to the same care bond hearings and are held for an indefinite period of time pending trial. Restitution to the impending agency has not been upheld in these cases, causing the impounding agency to bear all costs of rescuing a neglected or abused livestock animal. Thus, under current law, it is an extreme burden for impounding agencies to rescue/care for livestock and livestock often endure long holds in a facility when they could otherwise be placed in a new home. HB 24 now ensures quick due process for the livestock owner, that livestock will not be held needlessly, and that the impounding agency may be justly compensated for care provided.

Here are some additional highlights:
⏩Reenacts current law provisions governing animal fighting, bestiality, and humane agent residency requirements, which were struck down in the Ohio Sixth Appellate District; thus making those provisions now enforceable in that district again
⏩Allows dog wardens to use chemical capture on companion animals
⏩Clarifies that a dog warden can “donate” or “adopt” out dogs that are not redeemed by their owner and may charge an adoption fee
⏩Codifies humane society procedures for appointment and removal of humane agents, nonprosecution agreements, and public records that were previously only determined by case law
⏩Creates a yearly report of humane society activity that is submitted to the county sheriff
⏩Removes the antiquated “Ohio Humane Society” and provisions regarding humane society enforcement of crimes related to children
⏩Specifies that a humane agent is a public servant for the purposes of bribery law
⏩Increases the minimum monthly salary of humane agents to $150 a month

The full text can be found here: https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/hb24/EN/05?format=pdf

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 , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , ,