Title: Sullivan v. Commonwealth

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Hassell, C.J., Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn and 
Millette, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 
 
TERRY LYNN SULLIVAN 
             OPINION BY 
SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL 
v.  Record No. 100431  
           November 4, 2010 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor animal 
cruelty under former Code § 3.1-796.122,1 the sole question is 
whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. 
Facts and Proceedings 
 
In accordance with familiar principles of appellate 
review, the evidence will be stated in the light most 
favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial. 
 
While Brigette Berbes was driving on Interstate 81 in 
Augusta County about noon on April 10, 2008, she observed a 
horse lying in a pasture near the highway.  The horse was 
covered with a purple blanket.  Ms. Berbes, who was 
experienced in the care of horses, thought the blanket unusual 
because the temperature was in the upper 70’s at the time.  
She ran some errands and then drove back by the same route.  
The horse was still lying in the same place. 
                     
1 Former Code § 3.1-796.122 was repealed and replaced by 
Code § 3.2-6570, effective October 1, 2008, subsequent to 
final judgment in this case. 
 
Terry Sullivan was the president and executive director 
of the Fern Leigh Equine Foundation, Inc., a not-for-profit 
organization that cared for homeless horses on a farm owned by 
Ms. Sullivan.  The foundation’s purpose was to care for the 
horses until homes could be found for them.  It was supported 
by donations and occasional proceeds from the sale of horses.  
At the time of trial approximately 35 horses were being cared 
for on the Sullivan property.  The subject of this appeal, the 
horse seen by Ms. Berbes, was a mare approximately 20 years of 
age named “Dip.”  
 
About 7:00 that evening, Ms. Berbes returned to the scene 
and found that the horse had not moved.  She called her 
mother, asking her to call Ms. Sullivan to tell her that Ms. 
Berbes intended to enter the Sullivan property to look at the 
horse.  Ms. Berbes testified that she found the horse to be 
extremely thin and so weak that it could not lift its head off 
the ground.  It was unable to reach a supply of hay, grain and 
a small pan of water that had been placed on the ground behind 
it. 
 
Augusta County Animal Control Officer Gary Webb responded 
to a telephone report of the downed horse and met with Ms. 
Sullivan and Ms. Berbes in the field beside Dip.  Webb 
testified that the horse had been “down for about 30 hours.”   
Ms. Berbes asked Ms. Sullivan to give the horse to her so that 
 
2
she could care for it.  Ms. Sullivan said that she would do so 
if Ms. Berbes would assume responsibility for any veterinary 
bills.  Officer Webb then prepared a document entitled 
“Surrender Statement by Owner” that Ms. Sullivan signed.  It 
provided that Ms. Sullivan did “[r]elinquish property rights 
to Brigette Berbes who will be responsible for vet bills and 
will vacate property when the vet leaves.” 
 
Ms. Berbes then called Dr. Scott R. Reiners, a 
veterinarian at the Mountain View Equine Hospital.  He arrived 
at the scene and examined the horse.  He testified that the 
horse was “nonresponsive to any stimuli, very dehydrated and 
emaciated.”  Because Dip was unable to raise her head to drink 
from a bucket, Dr. Reiner administered 22 liters of 
intravenous fluids in the field, placed her on a continuous 
intravenous drip, transported her to his hospital and gave her 
drugs and six more liters of fluids.  Despite his efforts, Dip 
died later that night.  Dr. Reiners expressed the opinion that 
the horse was in need of emergency care long before his 
arrival and that the condition in which he found her was not 
of sudden onset. 
 
Two other veterinarians testified.  Dr. David W. Brown, 
Laboratory Director and Veterinary Diagnostician at the 
Harrisonburg Regional Animal Health Laboratory, performed a 
postmortem examination of Dip.  He found her to be emaciated 
 
3
and her ribs prominent.  He opined that this condition had 
developed over a considerable period of time, “probably 
weeks.”  He found several disease processes affecting the 
intestines, liver, kidneys, lungs and heart, as well as 
infestation by intestinal parasites.  These had caused the 
horse to become unable to absorb sufficient nutrition from the 
food it consumed, leading to its progressive emaciation and 
weakness.  Dr. Brown opined that the immediate cause of death 
was cardiac fibrosis and colitis. 
 
Dr. William S. Hunter, a practicing veterinarian, had 
done professional work for Ms. Sullivan for several years.  He 
testified that she called him on April 10, 2008 and told him 
that she had a horse down; he thought she said it had been 
down for two days.  That surprised him because most horse 
owners, he said, call a veterinarian immediately when a horse 
is found down.  He testified that he had never known a horse 
to be “down a day or two and get up and live, [not e]ven with 
medical treatment.” 
 
Dr. Hunter testified that when Ms. Sullivan called him, 
she told him that she didn’t know anything was wrong with Dip 
but when she removed her blanket she had “just wasted away.”  
She asked him whether the horse should be euthanized and he 
told her that its prognosis was poor but he could not 
recommend euthanasia unless he had first examined the horse.  
 
4
Although he was willing to come to the farm to see the horse, 
she did not ask him to do so, but instead said, “Okay, we can 
handle this.”2  
 
Ms. Sullivan testified that after her conversation with 
Dr. Hunter, she called a friend, Gary Meeks, to euthanize Dip.  
Meeks was unable to come to the farm that evening, but 
promised to come the following morning.  Dip was removed to 
the hospital before he could arrive. 
 
Ms. Sullivan was charged by warrant with a violation of 
former Code § 3.1-796.122.  She was tried and convicted in the 
general district court and appealed her conviction to the 
Circuit Court of Augusta County.  At a bench trial, she was 
found guilty and sentenced to twelve months in jail, with six 
months suspended on conditions of good behavior and “no 
possession of horses” for 24 months.  She appealed to the 
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction in a 
memorandum opinion with one judge dissenting.  Sullivan v. 
Commonwealth, Record No. 1886-08-3 (Jan. 19, 2010).  We 
awarded her an appeal. 
 
                     
2 The only significant conflict in the evidence was Ms. 
Sullivan’s account of this conversation.  She testified that 
she remembered that Dr. Hunter had advised her “to put [the 
horse] down,” that she had said, “[I]f you think you should 
come out . . . I want to give her every chance” and that Dr. 
Hunter replied, “No, no. It’s pretty cut and dried.” 
 
5
Analysis 
 
On appellate review of a criminal conviction for 
sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the 
relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the 
light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational 
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the 
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 
U.S. 307, 319 (1979).  Appellate courts defer to the findings 
of fact made by a jury or a trial judge at a bench trial if 
there is evidence to support them and will not set a judgment 
aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is 
plainly wrong.  Code § 8.01-680.  That deference applies not 
only to findings of fact, but also to any reasonable and 
justified inferences the fact-finder may have drawn from the 
facts proved.  Johnson v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 291, 295, 163 
S.E.2d 570, 574 (1968). 
 
Former Code § 3.1-796.122 provided, in pertinent part, 
that “[a]ny person who . . . (ii) deprives any animal of 
necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary 
treatment . . . shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor.”  
Former Code § 3.1-796.66 provided:  “ 'Emergency veterinary 
treatment’ means veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-
 
6
threatening condition, alleviate suffering, prevent further 
disease transmission, or prevent further disease progression.”3  
 
Applying that definition, we agree with the Court of 
Appeals’ conclusion that there was ample evidence to support a 
finding that Ms. Sullivan deprived Dip of necessary emergency 
veterinary treatment.  The circuit court could readily have 
inferred from the expert testimony that the horse was  
becoming progressively weaker and emaciated over a period of 
weeks before she went down.  The court could properly discard 
as incredible Ms. Sullivan’s account that she was unaware that 
there was anything wrong with the horse until she found it 
down, removed the blanket and discovered that it had “just 
wasted away.”  The court could properly conclude from the 
evidence that it would have been apparent, over a considerable 
period of time, that the horse was in need of veterinary 
treatment to alleviate suffering and to prevent the 
progression of disease.  At the very least, the court could 
properly conclude that the horse was in such a condition 
during a period of 30 to 48 hours before its death that 
emergency veterinary care was immediately necessary to 
alleviate suffering, during which time no such treatment was 
provided. 
                     
3 The same definition appears in the replacement statute, 
Code § 3.2-6500. 
 
7
Conclusion 
 
For the reasons stated, we will affirm the judgment of 
the Court of Appeals. 
Affirmed. 
                                                                
 
 
8