familiar with that area his entire life he's frequently in the area because as i indicated he repairs people there he has an interest in being there when play in your estimation is the nature of the range of these on because they affect the circumstances under which the a defendant observed an animal on his mother's back porch on his mother at that time didn't own a pet as  with the defendant was unaware that any visitor had arrived at the premises and there were no cars parked in the driveway he didn't see the owner of the dog arrive dog what if he thought it was someone else's what if he thought it was a coyote what if he thought it was something else and he simply didn't know there's no question that the dog itself was his companion dog the one that ended up being to anybody who shoots a dog and a porch and can't confirm that the dog is not is not leashed or are unleashed or cannot confirm the dog doesn't have a collar eat assumes responsibility for the what are the circumstances here the effect and you have to view the statute in the court under the circumstances of each individual case no there's no notice people disagree and we disagree the defendant needed to know that shelby was a companion animal at the time to shop with what is it the p five as defined by statute a companion animal as defined in the statute under  if it wasn't raised by the fine in this case and one possible it should be considered for not constitutional but responding to that that argument that's that essentially goes to factual based conclusion and in terms of whether someone should  defendant knew this was a companion however he goes on to say that that doesn't really matter and he's going to explain why what follows between pages three in pages that are over five pages of factual incredibility findings that the where we're we're talking about a car that's driving where they take a lifetime and this was actually brought forth on during closing argument by the and the the judge they just talks about it the judge says well i don't think that it would be necessarily that and i'm paraphrasing testimony of hurting my entire life it's totally unbelievable in regards to the defense mother's testimony he says there's going where the comes to mind to describe this pathetic and that it's totally absurd the judge completely discredits what the f defendant standing there at the bottom of the stairs and she looks down and she's her dog shelby lying on her side she watches shelby die on that porch and while shelby die she still tied with the orange collar in the bluish to the to the porch no way twenty minutes away george's testimony essentially puts the fan then on the porch or right next to the porch at the time the dog was shot and that's that's a contradiction entirely what defines custom which again of any dog tied to a porch with a blue leash knows that that is a companion and now moreover we have passed away from georgia saying that the fed had seen the dog many times before we have are testifying that she said that georgia had walked over to the a portion of the step and what it said was the evil intended to be prevented was the intentional killing or injuring of companion animals and that's exactly what we have here we have an intention to seriously injure a companion animal testimony in this case that that supports that position and we have findings by the court which support that position again we have a situation where the court talks about motive and he says i'm not sure what the motive was here this is on page three of his findings and on february twenty now if the court actually believed that this man is motive was simply to shoot the animal off he would have said that but by not saying that by saying i don't understand what the motive here is but that is not important the judge is saying look we're not sure why that why whatever problem with the language of the statute is whether it's older brother unconstitutional under certain circumstances as applied then none of those problems apply a dog and his cousin's dog the judge could have found that as well that's one hundred percent correct in the fact of the matter is the judge heard defendant's interpretation of the statute in taylor's findings a day later to meet that interpretation and what that what that saying that singular statement he and his findings were his statement his findings essentially support the idea that under any interpretation that you want to hear this under any interpretation defendant is proven beyond a reasonable doubt he was privy others up because his story is completely discredited and what you're left with this credible testimony from the dog on the dog owner puts defendant at the scene of the at the scene at the at where the dog was standing on the say actually he did say that he had seen the dog before he said he stopped once before you said it's not a year ago when the dog was a puppy the dog when it died was eight years old his story just did not make any sense it's seen the dog many times before and for whatever reason he decided that he was going to shoot it with the power and when he when he decided he should help and he knew or at least should have known that serious injury was going to come to that and that is sufficient to to affirm the f ott it is is extremely helpful if it comes from from this district it comes from a different division in that case we're dealing with the face of a firearms action on the court there are the defendant essentially says that there was no proof that he had the firearm was the face that's that's what his argument was his second portion of the argument was a constitutional attack on the statute which again we don't have in this case the to be the fifth division read that read the plain language of the statute and said it could arguably be read to require proof the defendant knew the nature of the defaced fire but it said in this case and in that case that's not the case it said even though the fact that there's a defacement of the firearm i mistakenly i mistakenly bears on the commission of the offense it does not need to be accompanied by an independent by the state and this is a simple similar thing we have something that a mistake me bears upon the commission the fact there has to be a finding that this was a companion animal but and it goes under say in this case the stanley case based on the surrounding facts and circumstances that convinces us of the correctness of drawing a  it does however cite the statutory provisions that only a clearly indicated legislative attempt to create absolutely guilty should be recognized and in terms of the final fact i refer that in this instance the judge said that the character of the animal that was shot on the porch is sufficient to infer that it was a companion animal by virtue of testimony that it was on a leash