Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Mistreatment of Animals — sufficiency of the evidence

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 18, 2012//

Mistreatment of Animals — sufficiency of the evidence

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 18, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Mistreatment of Animals — sufficiency of the evidence

Intent to kill is not an element of felony mistreatment of an animal causing death.

“The plain language of WIS. STAT. § 951.18(1) belies Klingelhoets’ interpretation: ‘Any person who intentionally violates [WIS. STAT. §] 951.02, resulting in the mutilation, disfigurement or death of an animal, is guilty of a Class I felony.’ The first and second clauses are distinct and separated by a comma. Under the plain language, ‘intentionally’ modifies only the first clause, ‘violates [§] 951.02.’ Thus, applying the WIS. STAT. § 939.23(3) definition of ‘intentionally’ (i.e., ‘that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified’) to the first clause of § 951.18(1), ‘the thing’ or ‘the result’ that the State must prove the actor had the ‘purpose to do’ or ‘cause’ is ‘unnecessary and excessive pain or suffering or unjustifiable injury or death’ to an animal. See §§ 951.02, 951.01(2). Likewise, the § 939.23(3) requirement that Klingelhoets have knowledge of the facts necessary to make his conduct criminal and which follow the word “intentionally,” does not mean Klingelhoets had to know his actions would cause Shakes’ death, but rather that he had to know his actions would be treating Shakes in a cruel manner. Unlike the first clause of the § 951.18(1) provision at issue, the second clause, ‘resulting in the mutilation, disfigurement or death of an animal,’ bears no direct relationship to the actor. Rather, this second clause merely looks to the final outcome of the intentional cruel treatment by the actor and increases the penalty exposure if the result is severe enough to amount to mutilation, disfigurement or death of an animal.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP507-CR State v. Klingelhoefts

Dist. II, Fond du Lac County, Wirtz, J., Gundrum, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Henak, Robert R., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Sanders, Michael C., Madison; Kaminsky, Daniel, Fond du Lac

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests