Call Us Toll-Free:
877-239-4480

Animal neglect

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 , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , ,

Jailtime for Man Convicted of 9 Counts of Companion Animal Cruelty

Posted by HM IT on February 13, 2017   |   Comments Off on Jailtime for Man Convicted of 9 Counts of Companion Animal Cruelty

State v. David Taylor a case we prosecuted for the Lake Humane Society resulting in a lifetime ban from keeping companion animals.

Taylor was convicted in the Willoughby Municipal Court of 9 counts of companion animal cruelty after trial for neglecting his three dogs, who were kept in a cluttered, dirty yard full of debris, including broken glass and nails. They suffered from severe flea infestation, open abrasions, bacterial infection, severe ear mites, fly strikes and whipworms.

In addition to the ban on keeping animals, Taylor was sentenced to 90 days in jail, 45 of which was suspended pending successful completion of one year probation including mental health assessment and treatment. He was fined $750 of which $500 is suspended.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Probation and Fines for Neglectful Dog Breeder

Posted by HM IT on February 3, 2017   |   Comments Off on Probation and Fines for Neglectful Dog Breeder

State of Ohio v. Christopher Bittner, a case prosecuted for the Cleveland Animal Protective League.

Bittner plead no contest to two second degree misdemeanor counts pertaining to his neglect of 10 dogs. Bitter was breeding bulldogs and the operation got out of control, causing the dogs to suffer from an overwhelming odor of excrement and various untreated medical conditions.

Bittner was sentenced to 5 years of probation, during which time he cannot own, keep, or reside with any animal. He will undergo random inspections by the APL. He must pay $2,785.00 in restitution for the care of the dogs, plus court costs. He was also sentenced to pay $1,500.00 in fines, $1,400.00 of which was suspended. If Bittner fails to comply, he faces 180 days in jail and imposition of the additional fine.

Bittner dog

Tagged , , , ,

As Temperatures Drop, a Reminder about Shelter Requirements

Posted by HM IT on December 14, 2016   |   Comments Off on As Temperatures Drop, a Reminder about Shelter Requirements

With the temperature in the teens for the next few days, we’re sending out a reminder about shelter requirements for companion animals pursuant to state code!

Cleveland enacted new animal neglect ordinances in December 2014, which were then enacted by several other localities. Those ordinances provide bright-line rules about what qualifies as appropriate shelter and higher penalties for violations. For cities that have not enacted stricter sheltering guidelines, state code governs.

Ohio Revised Code § 959.131(D)(3) provides that no person who is the custodian or caretaker of a companion animal shall negligently do the following:

“impound or confine the companion animal without affording it. during the impoundment or confinement, with access to shelter from heat, cold, wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the companion animal would become sick or suffer in any other way as a result of or due to the lack of adequate shelter.”

There is qualifying language to the shelter requirement — “if it can reasonably be expected that the companion animal would become sick or suffer in any other way as a result of or due to the lack of adequate shelter.”

This is a *proactive* statute that can be used in situations where the companion animal is provided with shelter, but that shelter is inadequate considering the extreme temperatures and due to that lack or inadequacy of shelter, the animal could reasonably be expected to suffer. Evidence of suffering is not a necessary element of this crime. The statute provides humane agents (or other law enforcement) with the proactive ability to seize an animal so that the animal does not have to suffer.

Some considerations for humane agents include the adequacy of the shelter in current winter conditions, any visible signs of suffering (such as “flipper walking” or shivering), the breed of dog or type of animal, and how long the animal has been confined outside.

Since R.C. § 959.131(D)(3) defines cruelty as the negligent confinement of a companion animal to a shelter in a manner in which it can reasonably be expected that the companion animal would become sick or suffer, and R.C. § 959.132 provides the authority for a humane agent to take possession of an animal cruelly treated, those two statutes authorize a humane officer to rescue animals from such conditions.

Moreover, some municipalities have ordinances prohibiting chaining or tethering that apply in these circumstances.

Of course, every shelter situation is different and law enforcement should consult with legal counsel and/or veterinary staff as needed.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Over $17,000 Restitution Ordered for Care of Neglected Horses

Posted by HM IT on October 6, 2016   |   Comments Off on Over $17,000 Restitution Ordered for Care of Neglected Horses

State v. Patricia Floyd, a case we prosecuted which was investigated by Animal Charity of Ohio. Floyd pled guilty to 4 counts of animal cruelty for neglecting 7 horses. Two had extremely long hooves, several were dehydrated or excessively thin, and all were living in filthy conditions. Horses require regular hoof trimming by a qualified farrier. Lack of proper care can lead to this severe and painful deformity.

The horses were all surrendered. Floyd was ordered by the Youngstown Municipal Court to pay $17,400 in restitution to Happy Trails Farm Animal Sanctuary who did an excellent job rehabilitating these animals. Floyd will be subjected to random inspections for 5 years, and may not possess any animals other than two dogs she already possessed, which were in good condition.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Owner Convicted for Neglecting Dog’s Severe Skin Condition

Posted by HM IT on October 4, 2016   |   Comments Off on Owner Convicted for Neglecting Dog’s Severe Skin Condition

State v. Christopher Overton, a case we prosecuted in Youngstown investigated by Animal Charity of Ohio, the Humane Society which serves Mahoning County.

Mr. Overton had three dogs. Two were in good condition. The third had an extreme untreated skin condition which caused large sections of skin to be red, raw and bloody. Blood and flesh were found on the collar when it was removed.

Overton surrendered the dog to Animal Charity. Today he plead guilty to companion animal cruelty. Overton will be on probation for three years, and will be subjected to random inspections to make sure that he is providing proper care for his remaining dogs. He is not permitted to have other animals. He will pay $500 for the rehabilitation and care of this dog. If he violates any of these terms, he may be ordered to serve up to 90 days in jail.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Jail Time and Community Service Sentence for Animal Neglect Case

Posted by HM IT on September 1, 2016   |   Comments Off on Jail Time and Community Service Sentence for Animal Neglect Case

State of Ohio v. Travis Wargo and Cari Welk, a case prosecuted for Lake Humane Society.

Wargo and Welk both pled guilty to animal neglect. The case involved two cats, Liam and Logan, and a dog, Lily, that were kept in deplorable conditions.The animals suffered from various untreated medical conditions. While the other animals were of good weight, Liam the cat was so painfully emaciated that when offered dog treats by the Humane Agent, he scarfed them so fast he was throwing up while he was eating them.

Both Defendants were sentenced to 5 years of probation, during which time they cannot own or harbor any animals. Lake Humane Society will conduct inspections to ensure compliance. Wargo and Welk will have to pay court costs and $3,030.00 in restitution for care of the animals to Lake Humane. Both Wargo and Welk were sentenced to serve 4 days in jail or complete 4 days of community work service. If they fail to comply with these conditions, Wargo will face an additional 356 days in jail and Welk 86 days.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

24 Animals Found in Filthy Conditions, Owner Sentenced to 5 years Probation

Posted by HM IT on August 30, 2016   |   Comments Off on 24 Animals Found in Filthy Conditions, Owner Sentenced to 5 years Probation

State of Ohio v. Sheri (Shari) Gilbert, a case prosecuted for Lake Humane Society.

Gilbert pled guilty to all 10 counts of animal neglect on the day of trial. 24 animals, including dogs, cats, parrots, a guinea pig, and ferrets, were seized from Gilbert’s home. The animals were kept in deplorable conditions and suffered from a variety of medical conditions. The foul smell of the residence was described as “beyond words.”

Gilbert was sentenced to 5 years of probation, during which time she cannot own, keep, or reside with any animal. She will undergo random inspections by Lake Humane to ensure that she is not harboring any animals. She must undergo a mental health assessment and complete recommended treatment. Gilbert paid $4,500 for the care of the 24 animals and must pay court costs. If she fails to comply with these conditions, she will face 90 days in jail and a $750 fine.

Alla

Alla, one of the dogs rescued by Lake Humane, was successfully treated and adopted.

Tagged , , , , , , ,