Call Us Toll-Free:
877-239-4480

restitution in animal case

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 citationState 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

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 , , , , , , , ,