Animal cruelty is a crime in Massachusetts. The highest court in the state recently decided a new case on the defense of animal cruelty.
What are the facts of the new case?
In the new case, Commonwealth v. Robin Adams, a man took his dog to a public park and let him run around off-leash. At some point, the dog started barking loudly and the man went over to see that the dog was fighting with a groundhog. To break up the fight, the man stood between the two animals and ordered his dog to stop. The dog did not obey and the man responded by grabbing the dog, pinning him to the ground, and striking the dog with his hand.
Three witnesses observed what happened and testified that the man, Mr. Adams, was angry and had struck his dog between 5 to 10 times. The hits spanned a period of about 30-40 seconds. Police were called and charged Mr. Adams with animal cruelty. After a two-day trial, he was convicted. Mr. Adams filed a motion for a new trial. It was denied. He then appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Why did Mr. Adams think he was wrongfully convicted?
- Testimony from his expert witness was wrongfully excluded from evidence
- The jury was not properly instructed on defenses to animal cruelty
The Court disagreed with these arguments and his conviction was upheld.
How did the Court rule on exclusion of expert testimony?
In criminal trials, people accused of crimes have an opportunity to present testimony from expert witnesses. An expert witness is a witness with specialized knowledge that the average person does not have. For example, a medical doctor would have knowledge of medicine that the average person who is not a licensed doctor would not possess.
Mr. Adams wanted the Court to hear testimony from a licensed veterinarian technician. He wanted that expert to testify to two points:
- The dog did not experience a pain response in his head
- The dog was hyper-fixated on the groundhog due to a phenomenon called “predatory chase drive”, an instinctual behavior animals have to hunt or kill smaller animals
Mr. Adams believed the first fact would help convince the jury that the dog was not struck forcefully because if he were, he would have experienced a pain response in his head. Presenting the second fact would help show that Mr. Adam’s decision to use force against the dog to discipline him was reasonable because the dog was hyper-fixated on the groundhog and unlikely to obey a verbal command to stop.
At trial, Mr. Adams called the veterinarian technician as an expert witness. During direct examination, he asked if there was anything significant about the dog experiencing a pain response in his front right paw but nowhere else. The prosecutor objected and the judge sustained the objection. After a conversation at sidebar and a recess, the judge ruled that testimony on injury to the paw of the dog would be excluded because a previous expert witness called by Mr. Adams testified to it. The judge also determined that his licensed veterinarian technician was not qualified to testify as an expert. The licensed veterinarian technician could only testify on the contents of a report of a veterinarian who examined the dog shortly after the events at the park.
The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that further testimony on the dog’s paw injury was unnecessary because it was cumulative. Testimony that is cumulative is testimony on a fact that has already been established. Cumulative testimony is considered to be repetitive. Judges have discretion to exclude evidence they believe would be cumulative to make the trial more efficient.
Regarding the exclusion of testimony on “predatory chase drive” (by determining the expert was not qualified to testify on this matter), the Court decided that it would not have to address this question. The Court’s reasoning was that even if the testimony was wrongfully excluded, it likely had no impact on the jury’s verdict. As a result, Mr. Adams was not prejudiced or disadvantaged in any way. The verdict did not have to be overturned.
Interestingly, in a footnote, the Court suggests that the determination that Mr. Adams’ expert was not qualified to testify was likely wrong. Even though his expert did not have a veterinarian medical license, she could have given an opinion on veterinarian care as a technician based on her experience. Having a particular license or qualification is not always required when the expert has sufficient experience with a topic.
How did the Court rule on the lack of jury instructions?
Mr. Adams argued that it was a mistake not to instruct the jury on these two subjects:
- That bona fide discipline is a defense to animal cruelty
- That defense of another animal is a defense to animal cruelty
During a jury trial, judges are responsible for giving jurors instructions on the law. The role of a jury is to decide which facts are true. After they decide those facts, they apply the facts they determine to be true to the law to reach a verdict. Jurors, who are typically are not lawyers, are not expected to know the law before their jury duty begins. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys will make arguments to judges before a trial begins on how the jury should be instructed. They present to the judge jury instructions, or documents the judge will read to jurors before they are sent off to deliberate. Judges have discretion on jury instructions.
The judge in Mr. Adams’ trial used a model jury instruction. A model jury instruction is a pre-written jury instruction widely accepted by judges across the state to be used at criminal trials. After considering the text of the model instruction on animal cruelty that was used, the judge determined that the language of the instruction covered the two defenses. The instruction was sufficient because it discussed how a person cannot be convicted unless the pain inflicted on the animal was “unnecessary” and “without any justifiable cause.” This implied that bona fide discipline and defense of another animal could be defenses.
Mr. Adams argued that the defenses should be more explicit in the model instruction. The Court disagreed that it was not clear enough but held that going forward a supplemental instruction should be read when the accused raises the issue of bona fide discipline. A supplemental jury instruction is an additional section of a model jury instruction that is only read when a specific issue in a case arises, like a bona fide discipline defense to animal cruelty.
What are the key takeaways from the case?
Even though the Court affirmed the animal cruelty conviction for Mr. Adams, this case makes some important points of law that effective criminal defense attorneys should keep in mind:
- The model instruction for animal cruelty covers the defenses of bona fide discipline and defense of another animal. But going forward, if a defendant raises the defense of bona fide discipline, judges should provide a supplemental instruction.
IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH ANIMAL CRUELTY, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.
CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.
Related Articles:
