1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: M A Y 11, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 514 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 SHA RON DU TTLE, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO ÑAAN A C OUN TY 11 D ou gla s R . D ri gge rs , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Margar et E . Mc Le an, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 14 Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 San ta Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 J.K . T heodos ia Johns on, A ssistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} De fendant Sharon Duttle w as convicted of o ne count of d ogfight ing cont rary 4 to N MS A 197 8, § 30 -1 8- 9 ( 2007 ); one c ount of c onsp iracy

to co m m it dogf igh tin g, 5 co ntr ar y to N MS A 1978 , § 30- 28- 2 (1 979) an d S ec tio n 30 -1 8- 9; t enc ount s of c ru el ty 6 t o a n i ma l s , c o n t r a r y t o N M S A 1 9 7 8 , § 3 0

- 1 8

- 1 ( B ) ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; e i g h tc o u n t s o f e x t r e me 7 cr ue lty to an im al s, co nt rary

to Se ct ion30- 18- 1( E ); a nd o ne c ount of ow nin g or 8 m ai nta ini ng m or e than si x do gs and/ or c at s w ith out a m

ultipl e an im al sit e pe rm it 9 contrary

to Doña A na County , N. M., Doña Ana Co unty Anim al Controls Ordinance 10 ch . 13 4, 2 03 -2 00 2 § 4.2 (20 02 ), repealed by D oñaA naCo unty , N

. M. , D oñaA na 11 A nim al Co ntr ols O rd i n an c e c h

. 134 , 266 -2 013 (2 013)

. O n a ppe al , D ef

en dant d oe s no t 12 challenge her con viction s for do gfightin g, cons piracy to com m it dog fighting , or her 13 violatio n of the Doña A na CountyAnim al Controls Ordinance. 14 { 2} D e f

e n d a n tc h a l l e n g e s h e r

c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r c r u e l t y t o a n i ma l s a n de x t r e me 15 cr ue lty to an im al s by

r ai sin g te n is sue s. T hr ee of the iss ue s are a ddr es se d inthi s 16 form al opi nio n, a nd the r em ai nin g se ve n is sue s have be ena ddr es se d inase parate 17 m em or an dum

opi nio n. Sta te v . D utt le , N o. 33, 524, m em . op. (N

. M. Ct

. App.

____ __, 18 20

__ ) (n on -p rece de nt ia l).2

1 { 3} De fendant argues that (1) the a ni m a l c r ue l ty s t at ut e is unconst itutio nally

vague; 2 (2 ) he r co nduc t i s in suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t he r co nvi ct ion s f

or extr em e cr

ue lty to 3 an im al s; and ( 3) he r co nvi ct ion s f or c ru el ty to an im al s an d ex tr em e cr ue lty to an im al s 4 are n ot su pp or te d b y

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. 5 { 4} W e hold that th e anim al cruelty statute is not un constitu tionallyvague and that 6 De fendant’ s behavior falls within the condu ct the L egislature intended to pun ish as 7 cruelty and extrem e cruelty to anim als under Section 30-18-1(B) and (E ). W e further 8 hol d t ha t th ere wa s su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce to supp ort he r co nvi ct ion s f or c ru el ty to 9 an i m al s an dex t re m e c ru el t y t o an i m al s . As a r es u l t , we a ff i rm Def en d an t ’s 10 co nvi ct ion s. 11 I. BACKGRO UND 12 { 5} D oñaA naCo unty A nim al Co ntr ol w as c ont ac te d a bout num er ous dogs ke pt 13 on Defe ndant’s property in a m anner consistent with pr ep ar at ions for staged 14 dogf igh tin g. D oña A na Co unty Sh er if f’ s D ep ar tm en t I nve sti ga tor

Ro by n G oj kovi ch , 15 an anim al cruelty

specialized investigator, went to Def endant’ s property

to condu ct 16 a w el fare c he ck

on the dog s. 17 { 6} Be ca

use of the out sid e co ndi tio ns in whi chthe dog s w er e ke pt, that nu m er ous 18 dogs w er e ch ai ne d to stake s, th e un kn own num be r of dog s, a nd the la ck

of3

1 vaccination records, am ong o the r t h i n g s, I nvestig ator G ojkovich obtain ed a sear ch 2 w ar rant t o c he ck

on the he al th and w el fare of the dog s. 3 { 7} T he ini tia l se ar chof D ef en dant’ s pr ope rty

r ev ea le d se ve n do gs b ei ng k ep t 4 ins ide D ef

en dant’ s r es ide nc e. T he dog s w er e ei the r gr av el y ill or ha d fr es h w ound s 5 consist ent with staged dogfighting . I nvestig ator G ojkovich also found the presence 6 of several other item s in Def endant’ s residence that sugg ested De fendant wa s 7 invo lved in organ i zed dogfight ing. Subsequently , a second search w arrant was 8 obt ai ne d br oa de nin g th e se ar chto inc lud e ev ide nc e of or ganiz ed

dog fi ght ing

. 9 { 8} T he dog s lo cate d ou tdo or s w er e fo und in de plo ra ble co ndi tio ns, an d m an y of 10 the m w er e al so in poor phy sic al co ndi tio n. A nim al Co ntr ol o ff ic er s a ssi gne d e ac h do g 11 a num be r an d ph oto gr aphe d th em in the a re a w he re the dog w as f ound

. Be fo re the 1 2 d o g s w e re re m o v ed fr o m t h e p ro p er t y, th e o ff

i ce rs al s o p h o t o g rap h ed ea ch d o g ’s 13 ac ce ss t o f

ood, w at er , sha de , she lte r, body c ondi tio n, a nd i nj ur ie s. 14 { 9} Af

ter their r em oval, the dogs were taken to the anim al shelter wher e they we re 15 as se sse d by

A nim al Co ntr ol o ff

ic er s and e xa m ine d by

the a nim al she lte r ve te ri nari an . 16 D r. P at

ri ci a N or ri s, ave te ri nari anw iththe D oñaA naCo unty S he ri ff s’ D ep ar tm en t, 17 ex am ine d and p hot ogr ap he d tw en ty -s ev enof tho se dog s. O f the thi rty -e igh t do gs 18 in it ia ll y

rem ov edfro m

Defend ant’ s pro pe rty, thi rty-on e h adto be eu th an iz ed , and two4

1 died in the anim al shelter as a result of severe heart worm disease an d re l at ed 2 co m pli catio ns. 3 { 10} De fendant wa s indicted on one count o f dogfighti ng, one count of consp iracy 4 t o c o mmi td o g f

i g h t i n g , t e n c o u n t s o f

c r u e l t y t o a n i ma l s , n i n e c o u n t s o f e x t r e me 5 cr ue lty to ani m al s, one co unt of ow nin g or m ai nta ini ng m or e than si x anim al s w ith out 6 a m ult ipl e an im al sit e pe rm it, a nd f orty c ount s of m ai nta ini ng an unst er ili ze d do g or 7 cat w ithou t a perm it. T he latter f orty counts were dism issed p ri o r t o t rial. A j ury 8 co nvi ct ed

D ef en dant o f one co unt of dogf igh tin g, one co unt of co nspi ra cy to co m m it 9 dogf igh tin g, te n c ount s of

c ru el ty to an im al s, e igh t c ount s of e xtr em e cr

ue lty to 10 anim als, and one count of owning m ore than six anim als without a m ultip le anim al 11 sit e pe rm it. T his appe al f oll ow ed

. 12 II . DISCUSS IO N 13 A. The A nim al Cru elty St atute Is Not U nconstitu tionally Vague 14 { 11} De fendant contends th at the extrem e cr uelty and cruelty

to anim als statute, as 15 ap pli ed , is voi d f

or va gue ne ss. S he a rg ue s th at S ec tio n 30 -1 8- 1( B) a nd ( E ) fa ile d to 16 pr ovi de he r not ic e that he r co nduc t w as pr ohi bit ed , a nd tha t the statut or y pr ovi sio ns 17 ar e ove rb ro ad , the re by a llo w ing f

or sub j ec tiv e, a d ho c ap pl ic at ions. S p e c i f i c a l l y, 18 De fendant argues that the term s “ neces s ar y s ustenance” and “ torture” ar e 19 uncons titutio nally

vague.5

1 { 12} “ [T ] he va gue ne ss d oc tr ine is ba se d on the pr inc ipl e of fa ir not ic e in tha t no one 2 m ay b e h el d crim inally responsibl e and subjec t to crim inal sanctions for conduct 3 without f

air warning as to the nature of the p ro s cr i b ed activity .” Sta te v . L ov ato , 4 2011 -N MC A -0 65, ¶

14, 150 N

. M. 39 , 2 56 P.3d 98 2 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and 5 citation om itted). “ [A ] statute denies const itutio nal due process if it is so vagu e that 6 persons of com

m on intelligence m

ust nece ssarily

guess at its m eaning.” Id

. (internal 7 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 8 { 13} “ W e re vie w a va gue ne ss ch al le nge de novo in lig ht of the fa ct s of the c as e an d 9 the conduct[,] which is p rohibited by the statute.” Sta te v . Sm ile , 200 9- N MC A -0 64, 1 0 ¶ 1 7 , 1 4 6 N

. M

. 5 2 5 , 2 1 2 P

. 3 d 4 1 3 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n mark s a n dc i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. “A 11 str ong pr es um

pti on o f co nst itu tio na lity

und er lie s e ac h le gis la tiv e en ac tm en t, a nd the 12 party c ha lle ngi ng c onst itu tio na lity ha s th e bur de n of

pr ovi ng a sta tut e is 13 uncons titutio nal be yon d al l reasonable doubt.” Sta te v . L agun a , 199 9- N MC A -1 52, 14 ¶ 24, 128 N

. M. 345, 992 P. 2d 896. Appe llate co urts “ ha ve aduty to co nstru e a statut e 15 in such a m anner that it is not vo id for vagu en es s i f a reasonable and practical 16 constructi o n ca n be given to its language.” Sta te v . Se got ta , 198 3- N MS C- 092, ¶ 5, 17 100 N

. M. 498 , 672 P

. 2d 1 129. Whe n ana ly zing a va gu enes s c ha lle nge to the 18 co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of a st atut e, th is Co ur t ap pl ie s a t wo- pa rt t es t. Sta te v . T sos ie , 201 1- 19 N MC A -1 15, ¶

31, 150 N

. M. 754 , 266 P

. 3d 3 4. W e co nsi de r w he the r the statut e “ (1 )6

1 fa ils to pr ovi de pe rs ons of or din ar y int el lig en ce usi ng o rd inary c om m on s en se af

ai r 2 o p p o rtu n i t y

t o d e t e rm i n e w h e t h e r

t h e i r c o n du c ti s p r o h i b i t e d , o r ( 2 ) f a i l s t o c r e a te 3 m inim um guidelin es for . . . enforcem ent . . . and thus encou rages subje ctive and ad 4 hoc application of the law .” Id

. ( om iss ion s inor igi na l) ( al te ratio ns, int er na l qu otatio n 5 m ar ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ); State ex rel. Children, Yo u t h & Fa mi lies Dep’t v. 6 Shawna C. , 2 00 5- NMC A -0 66, ¶ 32, 137 N

. M. 687 , 114 P

. 3d 3 67 ( not ing that du e 7 process also requires that the statute not encourage arbitrary or discrim inatory 8 en fo rc em en t)

. A va gue ne ss c la im “ cannot suc ce ed if the statut e cl earl y ap pli ed to [the 9 defendant’ s] conduct.” Sm ile , 2009 -N MC A -0 64, ¶ 17 (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu otatio n 10 m arks, and citation om itted). 11 { 14} In determ ining the prohibit ed conduct, we re v i ew questio ns of statuto ry 12 int er pr et at ionde nov o. Se e Stat e v. T ruj illo , 201 2- N MC A -1 12, ¶ 7, 289 P

. 3d 2 38, 13 cert. quas hed , 201 5- N MC E RT -0 03, 346 P

. 3d 1 163. “ [T he appe llate c ourts’ ] ult im at e 14 goa l i n st at

uto ry c onstru ct ionis to a sc er ta in and g ive e ff

ec t t o th e in te nt of the 15 L e gi slature.” Sta te v . Sm ith , 200 4- N MS C- 032, ¶ 8, 136 N

. M. 372 , 98 P

. 3d 1 022 16 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). W e be gin“ by loo kin g f

ir st t o th e 1 7 wo rd s ch o s en b y t h e L eg i s l a t u r e a n dt h e p l ai n m ea n i n g o f t h e L eg i s l at u re ’s 18 language.” St a te v . D av is , 200 3- N MS C- 022, ¶ 6, 134 N

. M. 172 , 74 P

. 3d 1 064 19 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Whe n astatut e co nta ins langua ge7

1 which is c lear and unam bigu ous, [the appellate courts] m ust give eff

ec t t o t hat 2 l an g uage and refr ain from further statutory

interpretation.” Sta te v . J ohns on , 2 0 0 1- 3 N MS C- 001, ¶ 6, 13 0 N. M. 6, 15 P

. 3d 1 233 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 4 o m i t t ed ). Be ca u s e o f t h e f ac tu al co m

p l ex i t y o f t h i s ca s e, we ad d re s s De f e n d an t ’s 5 co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en ts co nc ern in g S ect io n 3 0- 18 -1 (B) a nd (E), in tu rn . 6 1. Se ct ion 30- 18- 1( B) —C ru el tyt o A ni m als 7 { 15} De fendant challenges Section 30-18-1(B) as unconstit uti o n al ly vague as 8 ap pli ed to he r co nduc t in thi s ca se . Se ct ion 30- 18- 1( B) de fi ne s “ cr ue lty to an im al s” 9 as “ (1 ) ne gli ge ntl y

m istre atin g, i nj ur ing , kil lin g w ith out law fu l j ust if

ic at ion [, ] or 10 torm enting an anim al; or (2) abandoni ng or failin g to provi de necessary sustenance 11 to an anim al und er

that pe rs on’ s c ust ody

or co ntr ol. ” D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the 12 statut or

y langua ge f

ai le d to pr ovi de he r not ic e that he r co nduc t w as pr ohi bit ed a nd 13 is o ve rb ro ad

the re by a llo w ing f

or sub j ec tiv e, a d ho c ap pli catio n of thi s subs ect ion. 14 Sp ec if

ic al ly , D ef

en dant c ont en ds tha t un de r Se ctio n 30-1 8- 1( B) , she w oul d no t 15 co m pr eh en d th at

he r fa ilure to pr ovi de ad equa te she lte r an d m ed ic al c ar e to h er dog s 16 co ns tit

ute s af ai lur e to p ro vid e “ ne ce ssary sus te nanc e” und er

the statut e. I n so 17 ar gui ng, D ef

en dant a ssu m es that he r co nvi ctio ns for a nim al c ru el ty

a re ba se d ona 18 fi ndi ng tha t sh e fa ile d to pr ovi de ne ce ssary sus te nanc e to h er

dog s. H ow ev er , the 19 re co rd doe s no t su

ppor t this a ssu m

pti on. D ef

en dant f ai ls t o c onsi de r the a lte rn at ive8

1 the or ie s of

a nim al c ru el ty

e num er at ed

by the sub se ct ion

. T he e le m en ts o f Se ct ion30- 2 18- 1( B) w er e se t f

orth i n th e j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns. T he j ur

y w as ins tr uc te d: 3 Fo r y ou t o f i nd [ D e f e nd a nt ] gu i l t y of c r

ue l t y t o a ni m a l s, as 4 ch ar ge d in[ Co unt s 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, an d 22] , the [ S] ta te m ust 5 pr ove to y our

sa tis fa ct ionbe y ond a re as ona ble doubt ea chof

the 6 following elem ents of the crim e: 7 1. [D ] efendant negligentlym istreated, injured, or torm ented 8 ana nim al [ or ] abandon ed or f ai le d to pr ovi de ne ce ssary sus te nanc e to 9 ana nim al und er he r cu sto dy

or c ontro l; 10 2. T his ha ppe ne d in N ew Me xic o on or about the 15th day

of 11 Se pte m

be r, 200 8. 12 T he j ur

y r et ur ne d ge ne ra l ve rd ic ts o f guil ty of cr ue lty to ani m al s but did no t i ndi cate 13 w hic h th eo ry

the j ur y r el ie d up on in co nvi ct ing D ef en dant. A cc or din gly , w e cannot 14 say that S ec tio n 30 -1 8- 1( B) w as ap pli ed to D ef en dant’ s co nduc t in the w ay that sh e 15 sugg es ts. N or

doe s De fe ndant pro vid e us wi th any ev ide nc e to s howthat the j ur y in 16 fa ct r el ie d so le ly

on the e le m en t of

sus te nance. “ It

is not our pr ac tic e to r el y

on 17 as se rt ion s of co unse l unac co m panie d by supp ort in the re co rd

. T he m er e as se rt ion s 18 and argum ents of counsel are not evidence.” C ha n v . M onto ya , 201 1- N MC A -0 72, ¶

9, 19 150 N

. M. 44, 256 P

. 3d 9 87 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks an d c itatio n om itt ed ). F or thi s 20 Court to rule on an inadequately briefed cons titutio nal issue would essentially require 21 it to do th e wor k o n b eh al f of Defen da nt

. Se e Sta te v . Cl iff ord , 19 94 -NMSC -0 48, 22 ¶ 19, 117 N

. M. 508, 873 P

. 2d 2 54 ( re m ind ing c ouns el that the appe llate c ourts are not9

1 re qui re d to do the ir

r es earc h)

. A ge ne ra l ve rd ic t do es not ident if y w hic h th eo ry

the 2 j ur y r el ie d up on i n r et

ur nin g th e gui lty

ve rd ic t. “ [W ] he re a lte rn at ive the or ie s of gui lt 3 ar e put f orth unde r a sin gle c harg e, j ur y unanim ity

is re qui re d on ly as to the ve rd ic t, 4 not to any

particular theory

of guilt.” Sta te v . G odoy , 2012 -N MC A -0 84, ¶ 6, 284 P

. 3d 5 410. N ewMe xic o’ s un if orm j ur y ins tr uc tio ns “ ei the r re fe r ge ne ra lly to a re qui re m en t 6 of j ur y unanim ity

or r equir e onl y

that the j ur

y a gr ee on a ve rd ic t. No pr ovi sio n 7 explicitlyor i m

p l i ci tly requires j ury

unanim ity

on an und erly ing th eory .” Id

. 8 (alteration, internal quot at i on m arks, and citation om itted); se e Sta te v. Salazar , 199 7- 9 NMS C-044, ¶ 32, 123 N. M. 778, 945 P. 2d 996 (stating that the Suprem e Court has 10 held that “ a j ury ’ s general verdict w ill not b e disturbed in su ch a ca se wher e 11 subs tanti al ev ide nc e ex ist s in the re co rd supp ortin g at le as t one of the the or ie s of the 12 cr im e pr es en te d to the j ur y ”) ; B ust os v . H

yu ndaiM oto r C o. , 201 0- N MC A -0 90, ¶

48, 13 149 N.M

. 1 , 2 4 3 P. 3d 44 0 (“ A gener al verdict m ay be aff irm ed under any

theory 14 supp orted by

evidence unless an erroneous jury instruction wa s given.”). 15 a. Suf

ficientEvidenc e Su pports C onvictions for A nim al Cru elty 16 { 16} De fendant claim s that the State presented insufficient evidence to suppo rt her 17 ten convictio ns for crue l ty to anim als, c ontrary

to Section 30-18-1(B). “ When 18 review ing a challenge to the suffic iency of the evidence, w e m ust determ ine whether 19 subs tanti al e vid en ce of e ith er adir ec t or ci rcu m stanti al na tur e ex ist s to sup port a10

1 ve rd ic t of

gui lt be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t w ithr es pe ct

to ev er y e le m en t e sse nti al to 2 a conviction.” S t ate v. Cordova , 2016-NMC A- 019, ¶ 16, 366 P. 3d 27 0 (internal 3 qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) , cert. gran ted , 201 5- N MC E RT -0 08, ___ P

. 3d 4 ___. “ Su

bst an tia l ev ide nc e is e vid en ce a cc ep ta ble to a re as ona

ble m ind a s a de qua te 5 to sup port a conclusion .” Sta te v . A rre ndon do , 2012 -N MS C- 013, ¶ 10, 278 P

. 3d 5 17. 6 The a ppellate courts “ m

ust view the evidence in the light m ost f avorable to the [s] tate, 7 re sol vin g a ll co nf

lict s and i ndul gin g a ll pe rm iss ibl e inf er en ce s inf

av or of the 8 verdict.” State v. R eed , 200 5- N MS C- 031, ¶ 14, 138 N

. M. 365 , 120 P

. 3d 4 47. 9 { 17} As noted earlier , in order to c onvi ct De fendant of cruelty to anim als as charged 1 0 in C o u n t s 4 , 6 , 7 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 9 , 2 0 , a n d 2 1 , t h e S t a t e w a s r eq uir edto show 11 be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t D ef

en dant “ ne gli ge ntl y

m istre at ed , inj ur ed [, ] or 12 torm ented an anim al [or] abandoned or failed to provid e necessar y sustenance to an 13 anim al u nder her cust ody or co ntrol.” T he j ury wa s also inst ructed on general cr im inal 14 int en t: “ In ad dit ion to the oth er el em en ts of

. . . cr ue lty to ani m al s . . . the [ S] ta te m ust 15 prove to y our satisfaction, bey o n d a re asonable dou bt[,] that [D ] efendant acted 16 in te nt io na ll y

when sh e co m

m it te d t he cri m e.” 17 { 18} Based on our reviewof the rec ord, it does not appe ar t h at t h e jury wa s 18 instructed on the definition o f “ crim inal neglig ence. ” N onetheless, the j ury 19 instructio ns are the law o f t h e case against which the sufficiency of the evidence11

1 su pp or ti ng th e jury’ s verd ic t is to be m eas ur ed

. Se e Sta te v . Sm ith , 198 6- N MC A -0 89, 2 ¶ 7, 104 N

. M. 729 , 726 P

. 2d 8 83 ( “ Jur y ins tr uc ti ons be co m e the lawof the c as e 3 ag ai ns t wh ic h t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce i s t o b e m eas ur ed .”). Acco rd in gl y , we 4 rev ie wthe e vid en ce to de te rm ine w he the r suf fi ci en t e vid en ce w as pr es en te d to 5 supp o r t , b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u bt, that D ef

en dant i nte nti ona lly

“ m istre at ed , inj ur ed , 6 or torm ented” o r “ abandoned or failed to provide necessary sustenance to” Tw o-Pac, 7 Pri nc e, Prec io us , Sam so n, Kang ad oo , Mam ba , Pat ch es , Mo e, Cu rle y , and Ro xi e. See 8 § 30-18-1(B). 9 Tw o-Pac—C ount 4 10 { 19} W e conclude that there w as sufficient evidence in th e record to support 11 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionon C ount 4 r el at ing to T w o- Pa c. P hot ogr ap hs t ak ena t the 12 tim e of

the se ar ch show that Tw o- Pa c w as ch ai ne d outsi de

. H e w as e m ac ia te d to the 13 de gr ee that h is ri bs and his hip bone s we re vis ibl y pr otr udi ng. H e ha d ol d in

j ur ie s on 14 hi s fa ce an d o pe n so res on hi s he ad an d ear, an d h is sk in was i n p oo r co nd it io n. He 15 al so h ad

a n e y e co ndi tio n th at

c au se d hi s e y el id t o r oll inw ar d. 16 Pr ince—C ount 6 17 { 20} In review ing Defe ndant’s suffici en cy challenge, w e conclude that there w as 18 suf fi ci en t e vid en ce in the r ec or d to sup port D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion on C ount 6 19 relating to Prince. Photog raphs taken at t he tim e o f th e search show that Prince w as12

1 ch ai ne d ou tsi de

. H is w at er buc ke t w as li ne d w ith gr ee n a lga e. H e w as inf es te d w ith 2 tic ks, his ski n cond iti on wa s poor , an d he had hai r los s on his f ac e an d ba ck

e nd. H is 3 ears w ere clipped, and he had scarr ing on his f ace. He also had a harsh cough. Prince 4 ap pe ar ed

to be a t a nor m al w ei ght , how ev er , the girth of his body w as not m usc le or 5 fat bu t a cc um

ulate d f lui d. D r. N or

ri s te sti fi ed that this ty

pe of f lui d a cc um

ulatio n is 6 ty pically caused by

heart f ailure associated w ith heart worm disease or liver 7 problem s. O n Septem

ber 25, 2008, Pr ince tested positi ve fo r heart worm disease at 8 the anim al shelter. 9 Pr ecious—Coun t 7 10 { 21} We c o n cl u d e t h at t h er e w a s s u f fi ci en tev i d en ce t o s up p o rt De fe n d an t ’s 11 convictio n on Count 7 relating to P recious, based on our review of the ev i d en ce. 12 Ph oto gr ap hs t ak ena t the ti m e of the se ar ch show that Pr ec iou s w as c ha ine d ou tsi de 13 w ith no wate r. Sh e w as ve ry thi n and her ri bs and pe lvi c bone s w er e vis ibl e. H er ski n 14 conditi on was poor, and she had h ealing pun cture w ound s and scarring on her fac e, 15 w hic h w er e co nsi ste nt w ithsta ge d do gf igh tin g. 16 { 22} Pr ec iou s ha d alarg e ope n so re be hin d he r ear. Whe n P re ci ous w as dis co ve re d, 17 flies we re present on and around the sore. Dr

. Norr is te stified that flies are o ften 18 attracte d to op en wounds and will feed off of the tissue causing th e in j ury to worsen 19 an d ex pand. T he pr es en ce of the f lie s a lso ir

ri ta te s and a ggr av at es the a re a, c au sin g13

1 the dog to rub and scratch at it, which also w ors en s t h e wo u nd. A ccording to Dr. 2 N or ri s, thi s ty pe of ope n so re is ve ry

pa inf ul. 3 Sa m son —C ou nt12 4 { 23} W e conclude that there w as sufficient evid en ce in the re cord to supp ort 5 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionon C ount 12 r el at ing to Sam son. P hoto gr ap hs tak ena t the 6 tim e of the searc h show that Sam son was chained outsid e w ithou t wa ter. Ther e w as 7 ap i e c e o f

p l yb o a r dp r o p p e dup o n s o me l o g s , w h i c h p r o v i d e ds o me s h a d e f o r h i m. 8 Ther e w as als o a rusted-out barrel that he m ay have used for shelter. Sam son was 9 unde rw ei ght

a nd h ad sc ar s f ro m old inj ur ie s onhis e ar s and b ac k e nd. 10 Ka ng ad oo— C ou nt13 11 { 24} Ba se d onour

r ev ie w o f the e vid en ce , w e co nc lud e that the re w as suf fi ci en t 12 ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

D efend an t’ s c onvi ct ionon C ount 13 r el at ing to K an ga doo. 13 Photog raphs taken at the tim e o f th e search show that Kangadoo was chained outside. 14 He r wa ter bucket w as filled with m uddy wa ter and algae. Ther e wa s an em pty barre l 15 wi t h a h o l e in the botto m that she m ay

have used for shelter. Kangadoo wa s 16 unde rw ei ght , she ha d ha ir los s onhe r ba ck en d, an d he r ski n w as in poor c ondi tio n. 17 She had old injuries and an open cut on her face

. She had a large open sore on her ear. 18 { 25} Kangadoo had a sm all tum or on h er inner thigh , a sm all m ass on her lower 19 ab dom en , a nd a larg e va gin al tum or that di sto rt ed

he r an at om

y a nd m ad e it dif

fi cu lt14

1 for her to urinate. Kangadoo wa s diagno sed with both heart worm disease and cancer

. 2 Sh e w as e uth an iz ed

a t the a nim al she lte r on S ep te m be r 26, 200 8. 3 M am ba—C ou nt14 4 { 26} In review ing Defe ndant’s suffic iency argum ent, w e c o n cl ude that there w as 5 suf fi ci en t e vid en ce in the r ec or d to sup port D ef en dant’ s c on vi ct io n on Co unt 14 6 relating to Mam

ba. P hoto graphs taken at the tim e of the sear ch show that Mam ba wa s 7 chained outs ide. H er w ater bucket w as tipped over and she had no shelter. She w as 8 infested with t icks, andher ey e w as oozing with pus . S he wa s extrem ely thin and h ad 9 sc ar ri ng o n he r he ad , ba ck , a nd b ac k end. H er e ar s ha d so re s f

ro m be ing bitte n by 10 fl ie s. S he a lso ha d op ensor es on h er le gs and a

blo od bli ste r on h er

m am m ar y te at

. 11 Mam ba ’ s K -9 te eth, inc iso rs , a nd m olars w er e fi le d dow n. Sh e w as eu thaniz ed a t the 12 an im al she lte r on S ep te m be r 16, 200 8. 13 P at ch es —C ou nt16 14 { 27} Ba se d onour

r ev ie wof th e ev id ence , w e co nc lud e that the re w as suf fi ci en t 15 ev idenc e to s uppo rt

D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionon C ount 16 r el at ing to Patc he s. 16 Photog raphs taken at the tim e of the sear ch show that Patches w as chained outsid e. 17 His ar ea w as overgrown w i t h we ed s , an d he did no t have any water. Patches w as 18 m iss ing ha ir al l ar ound his ne ck , on the ins ide s of his le gs, a nd o n hi s hi ndqu ar te rs . 19 H e ha d de rm at iti s onhis le gs, his c oll ar ha d c hunk s of

dir t and h ai r, a nd a sc ar

a ro und15

1 his nec k ap p ea re d to be from an em bedded collar. P atches had a lar ge open sore 2 behind his ear and fly bites on top of his ears. Patches also suff ered from an um

bilical 3 hernia and had pust ules on hi s scro t u m . He wa s euthanized the sam e day he w as 4 r e mo v e df

r o m De f e n d a n t ’s p r o p e rt y. 5 M oe —C ou nt19 6 { 28} W e also conclude that there w as sufficient eviden ce in the re cord to supp ort 7 D e f e n d a n t ’s c o n v i c t i o n o n C o u n t 1 9 r e l a t i n g t o M o e . P h o t o g r ap h s t a k e n a tt h e t i me 8 of the se ar chsho wthat M oe w as c ha ine d ou tsi de w ith out w at er . H e show ed

“ m aj or 9 ne ur olo gic al sig ns” ; he w as star ga zi ng, or sw ing ing his he ad

back a nd f orth, 10 sna ppi ng a t the ai r, shakin g, an d havi ng tro ubl e gettin g or ie nte d to his sur ro undi ngs. 11 H is m outh w as ble ed ing , a nd h e ha d f lui d f ill ed nod ule s onhis e lbo w s and h ind le gs. 12 Moe was ver

y a ggr es siv e an d w as e uth an iz ed the sam e day

he w as r em ove d f

ro m 1 3 D e f e n d a n t ’s p r o p e rt y. 14 C ur ly— C ou nt20 15 { 29} Ba se d up on o ur r ev ie wof

the e vid en ce , w e co nc lud e that the re w as suf fi ci en t 1 6 e v i d e n c e t o s up p o rtDe f e n d a n t ’s c o n v i c t i o n o n C o u n t2 0 r e l a t i n g t o C u r l y. 17 Ph oto gr ap hs t ak ena t the ti m e of the se ar chsho wthat C ur ly w as c ha ine d ou tsi de 18 wit ho ut w at er . H e w as ve ry thi n, his r ibs a nd h ip b one s pr otr ude d, he ha d pu s- lik e 19 dr ai na ge f

ro m his nos e, a nd his e ar

w as tor n. H e ha d op ensor es on h is h ea d, ba ck ,16

1 an d sh oul de rs , a nd f

lui d- fi lle d no dul es on h is el bow s an d hi nd l eg s. Curl y w as a lso 2 v ery ag g re s s i v e a n dwa s eu t h an i ze d t h e s ame d ay h e wa s re m o v ed fr o m De fe n d an t ’s 3 p r o p e rt y. 4 R oxi e— C ou nt21 5 { 30} Af

ter a reviewof the evidence, we conclude that there wa s sufficient evidence 6 to sup port Def

endant’ s convictio n on Coun t 21 relating to Rox ie. Photog raphs taken 7 at t h e t i m e o f t h e s ea rc h s h o w t h at Ro x i e w as fo u n di n a c r a t e i n s i d e D ef en d an t ’s 8 re sid en ce . T he c rate w as c ak ed in som e sort of br ow n su

bst an ce ins ide a nd o ut. T ra sh 9 wa s piled up all around and on top of the crate

. Inside the crate , the plac e w h ere 10 Ro xie w as ly ing w as a lso co ve re d in tr as h, inc lud ing old ne w spa pe rs a nd e m

pty sod a 11 cans. Sh e did not ap pe ar to ha ve ac ce ss to w at er . Ro xie w as unde rw ei ght , she ha d ha ir 12 los s onhe r ba ck

le g, an d she al so h ad

f le as . Ro xie ha d sw oll enpun ct ur e w ound s on 13 her fa ce and foot. Ther e w ere teeth m arks on her leg, and the underside of h er nec k 14 wa s scraped and bruised. The punctu re wounds under her legs , on her n eck, and back 1 5 ap p e a r e dt o b e h e a l i n g , i n d i c a t i n g s h e h a ds u s t a i n e dm u l t i p l e i n j u r i e s o n s e p a ra te 16 oc ca sio ns. A ll of

Ro xie ’ s in

j ur ie s w er e co nsi ste nt w ithsta ge d do gf igh tin g. 17 A cc or din gly , w e furthe r co nc lud e that the re is suf fi ci en t e vid en ce in th e re co rd to 18 supp ort any

of the the or ie s se t f

orth i n th e j ur

y ins tr uc tio n onc ru el ty

to an im al s.17

1 2. Se ct ion 30- 18- 1( E) —E xt re m e C ru el tyt o A ni m als 2 { 31} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

he r ch ar ge s f

or e xtr em e cr

ue lty to an im al s f

or f ai lur e to 3 tr eat an an im al ’ s te rm ina l ill ne ss ar e voi d fo r va gue ne ss. Sp ec if ic al ly, De fe ndant 4 cl ai m s th at

ape rs on o f or din ar

y int el lig en ce w oul d no t e qua te tor tur e or m uti la tio n 5 w ith not tr eatin g a ser iou sly ill dog

. S ec tio n 30 -1 8- 1( E ) de fi ne s “ ex tr em e cr ue lty to 6 an im al s” a s c onsis ti ng “ of ape rs on ( 1) int en tio na lly or m al ic iou sly

tor tur ing , 7 m ut il at in g, i nju rin g[ ,] or po is on in g an an im al ; or (2 ) m al ic io us ly k il li ng an an im al .” 8 De fendant also argues that her behavior did not fa ll within the conduct th e L egislature 9 int en de d to pun isha s e xtr em e cr ue lty to an im al s un de r the sub se ct ion

. 10 { 32} A t tri al , one of

the S ta te ’ s th eo ri es of

the c as e w as that D ef

en dant i nte nti ona lly 11 tortur ed , m

uti la te d, or

inj ur ed the dog s in he r care , c ust ody , a nd c ontro l. D ef en dant 12 argues that under Section 32-18-1(E), the failure to s eek o r provide veterinary car e 13 to the se se ri ousl y

il l or inj ur ed dog s do es not

c onst itu te tor

tur e as c ont em

plate d by 1 4 t h i s s ub s e c t i o n . I n s o a r g u i n g , D e f e n d a n ta s s u me s t h a t h e r

c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r e x t r e me 15 cr ue lty to an im al s ar e ba se d onaf ind ing that sh e tortur ed

he r dogs

. H ow ev er , the 16 re co rd doe s no t su

ppor t this a ssu m

pti on. A ga in, D ef

en dant f ai ls t o c ons id er the 17 al te rn at ive the or ie s of e xtr em e cr

ue lty to an im al s e num er at ed

by thi s subse ct ion

. T he 18 elem ents of Section 30-18-1(E) we re set forth in the j ury instructio ns. The j ury wa s 19 ins tr uc te d a s f oll ow s:18

1 Fo r y ou t o find [D ef en dant] gui lty of ex tr em e cr ue lty to an im al s, 2 as c harg e[ d] in [C ount s 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, an d 18] , the [ S] ta te m ust 3 pr ove to y our

sat isf ac tio n be y ond a re as ona ble doubt e ac h of

the 4 following elem ents of the crim e: 5 1. [D ] efendant in t e nt i on a l l y o r m a l i c i ou sl y

t or t ur e d, m utilated 6 or

inj ur ed a n anim al ; 7 2. T his ha ppe ne d inN ew Me xic o on or ab out the 15th day of 8 Se pte m

be r, 200 8. 9 { 33} T he j ur

y re tur ne d gene ra l ver dic ts of gui lty of e xtr em e cr

ue lty to an im al s bu t 1 0 d i dn o ti n d i c a t e wh i c h t h e o ry i tr e l i e dup o n i n c o n v i c t i n g De f e n d a n t

. Ac c o r d i n g l y, 1 1 we ca n n o ts ay h o w S ec t i o n 3 0 -1 8 -1 (E ) w as ap p l i ed b y t h e ju ry t o De fe n d an t ’s 12 co nduc t. T he ge ne ra l ve rd ic t did not ide nti fy w hic h theo ry the j ur y r el ie d up on, nor 13 did it re qui re unanim ity on an unde rl y ing the or y in re tur nin g th e gui lty

ve rd ic t, onl y 14 t h a t t h e r e b e u na ni m it y as t o t he ve rd ic t. Se e G odoy , 2 0 1 2

- N M C A

- 0 8 4 , ¶ 6

. T he 15 ge ne ra l ve rd ic t w ill not be dis tur be d if the re is subs tanti al e vid en ce in the r ec or d to 16 su pp or t at lea st on e o f th e th eo rie s o f th e cri m e p res en te d t o t he ju r y . Se e Salazar , 17 1997 -N MS C- 044, ¶

32; B ust os , 201 0- N MC A -0 90, ¶ 48 (“ A ge ne ra l ve rd ic t m ay be 18 af fi rm ed und er an y the or

y supp orte d by

e vid en ce unl es s an e rr one ous j ur y ins tr uc tio n 19 wa s given.”). 20 { 34} De fendant does not direct u s to any evidence t o show that the jur y in fact r elied 21 sol el y on the e le m en t of

tor tur e. A ga in, appe llate c ourts sim ply c an not r el y on the 22 as se rti on s o f co un se l wi th ou t s up po rt i n t he reco rd

. Ch an , 201 1- N MC A -0 72, ¶ 9. F or19

1 thi s C ourt t o r

ule on an in ad equa te ly

br ie fe d c onst itu tio na l i ssue w oul d e sse nti al ly 2 req ui re u s to do th e wor k o n b eh al f of Defen da nt , whi ch we wil l n ot do

. Se e Cl iff ord , 3 1994 -N MSC- 048, ¶ 19 ( rem indin g counsel that the appellate courts are not required 4 to do th eir re search)

. 5 a. De fend ant’s Be havior Falls Within the C onfines of S ection 30-18-1(E) and 6 S u f

f i c i e n t E v i d e n c e S u p p o r t s De f e n d a n t ’ s Co n v i c t i o n s f o r E x t r e me 7 C ru el tyt o A ni m als 8 { 35} D ef

en dant arg ue s, w ith in the co nf ine s of tor tur e, that he r ina ct ion s do not f al l 9 w ith in Secti on 30- 18- 1( E ). S he a lso c la im s th at the S ta te pr es en te d in suf fi ci en t 10 ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

he r ei ght c onvi ct ion s f

or e xtr em e cr

ue lty to an im al s, co ntr ar

y to 11 the sub se ct ion

. T he ove rl ap pin g ana ly sis of w he the r D ef

en dant’ s c ondu ct

f al ls w ith in 12 the confines of this subs ection and whether there w as sufficient evidence to suppo rt 13 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s f

or e xtr em e cr

ue lty to an im al s ne ce ssi ta te s th e dis cu ssi on o f 14 the se iss ue s to ge the r. D ef en dant w as c onvi ct ed

of e igh t c ount s of

e xtr em e cr

ue lty to 15 an im al s c onc er

nin g th e fo llo w ing dogs : Ja de , Ja ck , D eu ce , D es ir ee , I tty -B itty , Cl eo , 16 H an nib al , a nd B obby

. O f the e igh t do gs tha t D ef en dant w as co nvi ct ed of

sub j ec tin g 17 to e xtr em e cr

ue lty , a ll ei ght

w er e w ith out

c le anw at er ; se ve n w er e unde rw ei ght ; on e 18 w as e m ac ia te d; f

ive w er e se ve re ly

e m ac ia te d; s ix h ad

obv iou s sc ar

ri ng c onsi ste nt 19 with staged dogfighting ; six had open w ound s and untreated sores; one had a severe 20 ey e inj ury ; two had advanced heart worm disease; one was infe sted with ticks; three20

1 ha d larg e pa inf

ul t um or s or m as se s; tw o e xhi bit ed

obv iou s si gns of

se ri ous illne ss; 2 an d f our ha d te eth that w er e cu t or fi le d to the gum li ne , m ak ing it

e xtr em el y

pa inf ul 3 to e at or dr ink

. 4 1. It ty -Bitty (Coun t 3), Cle o (Coun t 8), Hannibal (C ount 10), and Bobb y 5 (C ou nt17) 6 Itty-Bit ty—Coun t 3 7 { 36} Ba se d onthe e vid en ce in the r ec or d, w e con cl ude that De fe ndant’ s cond uc t i s 8 puni shable und er S ection 30-18 -1(E), an d there w as sufficient evidence to convict 9 D ef en dant o f ex tr em e cr

ue lty r el at ive to Itty -B itty . Ph oto gr ap hs t ak ena t the ti m e of 10 the search show that I tty -Bitty wa s found in a bedroom

inside Defe ndant’s r esidence, 11 ly ing in ur ine an d fe ce s. Sh e w as cr y ing out a nd thr as hin g he r fr ont

paw s. I tty -B itty 12 w as c om

ple te ly em ac ia te d an d w as una ble to ge t up

. H er

br eathi ng w as la

bor ed , a nd 13 she was unable to close her m outh . I tty -Bitty ’ s conditi on was so grave that she w as 14 im m ed ia te ly take n to the an im al she lte r an d ha d to be eu thaniz ed that nig ht. H er body 15 was tak en to th e New Mex ic o S ta te D i a g n o st ic Lab, wh ere Dr. No rb ertTaka cs , a 1 6 v e t e r i n a ry p a t h o l o g i s t , p e r f o rmed an e c r o p s y. 17 { 37} Records fr om

the anim al shelter note that Itty -Bitty had scars all over her f ace 18 an d f ro nt l eg s. S ev era l of

he r te eth w er e m iss ing or br oke n of

f. S he ha d m

ult ipl e 19 ch ro nic pr es sur e ulc er s onhe r ski n. T he ne cr opsy r ep ort indic at es that I tty -B itty 20 suf fe re d f ro m a dvanc ed

pne um onia. H ow ev er , the m ost se ri ous co ndi tio ns17 Dr . T akac’ s testim ony wa s th at t he heart w orm s wer e 18 to 22 centim eters 1 18 l on g. F or

t he p ur po se s of t hi s op i ni onc e nt i m e t e r s w e r e c on ve rt e d t o inches for a 1 9 mo r e c o mm o n fr am e o f refe ren ce. See Me tr ic Co nve rs ion s, http://w w w . m et ri c-con ve rs ion s. or g/l en gth /c en tim et er s- to- inc he s- table

. htm ( la st 20 21 visited May

10, 2016). 21 1 underly ing Itty -Bitty ’ s death wer e extrem e em aciation and seve r e h e ar t w or m d i sease. 2 W ith regard to Itty -Bitty ’ s body , D r. Takacs described her em ac i at ed conditio n as 3 “th e s k i n i s k i n do f

dryi n g o n [ t h e ] b o n e o r s k e l e t o n . ” D r . Ta k a c s a l s o d e s c r i b e dI t t y4 Bi tty ’ s he ar

t w orm dis ea se a s “ ve ry

se ve re . ” H eart wor m di seas e is a para sit ic 5 inf ec tio n ty pic al ly spr ea d by m osqu ito s. T he he ar

t w orm para sit es af

fe ct the he ar

t and 6 the pul m onary

a rt er ie s c au sin g he ar

t f ai lur e if le ft untre at ed

. 7 { 38} Dr . N orris testified that heart w orm disease in its early

stages m ay

be trea table; 8 however, if the di sease is allowed to progress to heart fa ilure, tr eatm ent is no lo nger 9 effe ctive to save the dog’s l i fe

. Dr. N orris also testified to the various h eart w orm 10 pr even ti on s, s uc h a s m in im iz in g m os qu it o p op ul at io ns by c le ar ing aw ay

e xc es s br ush, 11 elim inating standing water, keeping water fre sh and changed o ut, apply ing in sect 12 repellant to anim als ho u sed outd oors, and giving dogs p reventive m edication. D r. 1 3 N orri s als o r e c o m

m e n d e dt e s t i n g d o g s f

o r h e a rtw o rm

a n dt r e a t i n g a n y

i n t h e e a rl y 14 stages of the disease so that m osqu itos do not spread t he disease from dog to dog. In 15 Itty -Bitty ’ s case the disease w as so advanced, her heart and associated arterie s wer e 16 fu ll of he ar t w orm s th at

w er e ap pr oxi m at el y

se ve n to e igh t i nc he s lo ng. 122

1 Cleo—C ount 8 2 { 39} Ba se d on the ev ide nc e in the re co rd , w e co nc lud e that D ef en dant’ s c ondu ct

is 3 puni sha

ble un de r Sec tio n 30 -1 8- 1( E ), a nd tha t the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to 4 supp ort D ef

en dant’ s c onvi ct ion on Coun t 8 re la tin g to Cl eo . P hot ogr ap hs t ak ena t the 5 tim e o f th e search show that Cleo was kept outsi de in a sm all fence d area . H er m ake6 shift shelter had collapsed and w as nearly covered by the tall we eds. H er w ater bucket 7 wa s dirty

and nearly

covered w ith the ov ergrow th. She had sores around her ear, her 8 ski n con di ti on wa s po or , a nd s he w as inf es te d w ithti ck s and f

le as . Cl eo a lso ha d a 9 large m am

m ary tum o r app roxim ately

the size of a grapefr

uit. T he tum or wa s very 10 painful to Cleo up on exam ination and was so advanced that it wa s not tre atable. Cleo 11 w as e uth an iz ed

a t the a nim al she lte r on S ep te m be r 26, 200 8. 12 Ha nn ib al— C ou nt10 13 { 40} H an nib al w as c ha ine d o uts ide a m ong a larg e ove rg ro w th o f w ee ds w ith out 14 w at er or she lte r. H e ha d in

j ur ie s to his he ad , fa ce , ears , an d le gs. H e al so ha d aski n 15 conditi on called seborrhea, which ca used his skin to be irritated and crusted over. 16 Han n i b al h ad h ai r loss on hi s back end and was severe ly em aciated, his hip bones 17 w er e sti ck ing out , a nd h is r ibs w er e ve ry pr om ine nt. D r. N or

ri s te sti fi ed

that the 18 m uscle tissue around Hannib al’ s rib cage w as so atrophied th at she coul d put her 19 fi nge rs be tw ee n hi s r ibs

.23

1 { 41} D es pit e his e m ac ia te d c ond i t i o n, H an nib al ’ s a bdom enw as larg e an d f

ill ed w ith 2 fl uid

. A cc or din g to D r. N or ri s, the tr em en dous a m ount of f lui d a cc um

ul at ed in 3 Hannib al’ s abdom en “ wa s actually stretchi ng his m

uscles out abo ut as far as they 4 co uld go. ” Fl uid

w as a lso ac cu m

ulatin g in H an nib al ’ s lungs, m ak ing it ve ry dif fi cu lt 5 fo r him to br eathe

. H an nib al ha d trou ble w al kin g bec au se he w oul d be out of br eath. 6 H e co uld

no t ge t co m fo rt ab le , a nd h e w oul d no t si t do w n be ca use doi ng s o m ad e 7 breathing e ven m ore difficult for him

. During her exam ination , D r. Norr is tookcar e 8 not to m ove him

or ha ve him w al k be ca

use he w as ha vin g agr eat de al of dif fi cu lty 9 br eathi ng j ust

standi ng the re; he was in dis tr es s. H an nib al a lso ha d atum or on h is 10 unde rs ide that w as ble ed ing a nd o oz ing

. 11 { 42} D r. N or

ri s te sti fied th at

ape t owne r w oul d e as ily be able to re co gni ze that a 12 dog in Hannib al’ s conditi on was in severe distress; th ere wa s no do ubt th at he w as 13 suf fe ri ng. G ive n the se ve ri ty of the c ondi tio n th at

H an nib al w as a llo w ed

to pr ogr es s, 14 treatm ent optio ns were lim ited; Dr N orris’ rec omm e nd at i on w a s e ut ha na si a. Hannib al 15 w as e uth an iz ed

a t the a nim al she lte r on S ep te m be r 26, 200 8. 16 Bo bb y—C ou nt17 17 { 43} Bobby

wa s chained outs ide without any water. Bobby ’ s skin con ditio n was 18 poor . H e ha d ol d in

j ur ie s onhis f

ac e an d le gs, a nd o pe n so re s onhis he ad a nd h is 19 shou lde rs . Bo bby ’ s ey e w as inj ur ed an d inf ec te d, an d it w as ne ar ly sw oll en shut a nd24

1 ooz ing w ithpus . Bo bby ha d an um

bil ic al he rn ia

. H e w as se ve re ly em ac ia te d, w ithno 2 palpable fat, obvio us los s o f m u s cl e m ass, and his ilium and scapula bones were 3 p ro t ru d i n g . B o b b y wa s eu t h an i ze dt h e s ame d ay h e w as re m o v ed fr o m De fe n d an t ’s 4 p r o p e rt y. 5 2. Jade (C ount 5), Jack (C ount 11), Deuce ( Coun t 15), and D esiree ( Coun t 6 18) 7 Jade—Coun t 5 8 { 44} Ba se d onthe e vid en ce in the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the re w as suf fi ci en t 9 ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionon C ount 5 r el at ing to J ad e. P hot ogr ap hs 10 taken at the tim e of the sear ch show that Jade wa s chained outs ide with no water . H er 11 onl y sha de or she lter was apie ce of

ply w ood pr oppe d up a ga ins t tw o f en ce pos ts. 12 Sh e w as inf

es te d w ithti ck s, she w as e m ac ia te d, a nd h er rib s and h ip b one s vi sib ly 13 pr otr ude d. S he ha d ol d in

j ur ie s on he r ear. H er ski n cond iti on wa s poor , she ha d ha ir 14 los s onhe r ba ck

e nd, a nd s he ha d a tu m or

on h er ne ck

. Ja de ’ s ut er

us w as e nlarg ed

a nd 15 fi rm , ind ic at ing that sh e w as pr eg nant. H er te eth ha d be enc ut o r fi le d do w n. 16 { 45} D r . N o rr i s t e s t i f i e d t h a t b l u n t i n g d o g s ’ t e e t h i s a p r a c t i c e u s e d i n s o me 17 dogf igh tin g r ing s. S he e xpl ai ne d that old er dogs , or dog s w ho m ay

no l onge r be able 18 to f igh t c om peti ti ve ly a re som et im es use d a s “ tr ai ne r dogs ” in p ra ct ic e ag ai nst 19 y oung er inexperience d fightin g dog s. T he trainers’ t ee t h ar e b lunted to m inim ize 20 da m ag e to the tr ai ne e dogs

. Whe n a dog’ s te eth ar e fi le d or cu t i t i s ve ry pa inf ul f or25

1 the dog, especially if the root c avity or canal is exposed. T he dogs are reluctant to eat 2 or dr ink be ca use bit ing down and t ak ing w at er w iththe r oot

e xpos ed is ex cr uc ia tin g. 3 Ex p o s i n g t h e r o o ti n t h at wa y al s o ex p o s es t h e d o g t o i n fe ct i o n o f th e b o n e. In J ad e’s 4 case, her tee th wer e filed all the way down to the gum

line, and the roots we re 5 com pletely exposed. She w as i n an incredible am ount of pain and would no t let Dr

. 6 N or ri s to uc h he r m outh lo ng e noug h to pho tog ra ph h er te eth. 7 Jac k —C ou nt11 8 { 46} Ba se d onthe e vid en ce in the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the re w as suf fi ci en t 9 ev ide nc e to suppo rt

D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionon C ount 11 r el at ing to Ja ck

. 10 Ph oto gr ap hs t ak ena t the ti m e of the se ar chsho w that Ja ck w as c ha ine d ou tsi de

. H is 11 w at er buc ke t w as fi lle d w ith m uddy w at er an d al ga e. Ja ck w as thi n; h is r ibs a nd h ip 12 bones were visib le. Jack had old in j uries on his face and h ai r l o s s in patches 13 through out hi s entire body . Jac k had sup erfic ial wou nds on the top of his h ead that 14 w er e co nsi ste nt w ithsc ra pe s or f ly bit es or “ fl y st rik e.” Ja ck ha d si m ilar w ound s 15 behind his ear and on his sid e. 16 { 47} Ther e w ere deeper w ound s o v er his entire m uzzle that could have been 17 co nsi ste nt w ith sta ge d dogf igh tin g. H ow ev er , D r. N or ri s te sti fi ed that the w ound s on 18 Jack’ s m

uzzle, along with s om e scabb ing on his legs, were likely solar derm atitis, an 19 inf ec tio n inthe ski n c au se d by a lle rg ie s, or

by se nsi tiv ity

a nd e xpos ur e to the sun .26

1 A cc or din g to D r. N or

ri s, sol ar de rm at iti s is ve ry pa inf ul f or adog be ca

use the w ound s 2 on the m

uz zl e ar e raw an d ooz ing , an d if the dog is n ot p ro te ct ed f ro m the sun , a nd 3 t h e w o u n d s ar e n o tt re at ed , t h e s ame s k i n i s i n ju re db y t h e s u n re p ea t e d l y. Ja ck ’s 4 can i n e t e e t h a n d i n c i s o r s w e r e c u t o r f i l e d d o w n , a n d t h e r o o t s o f t h e ca nin e te et h 5 w er e ex pose d. Ja ck

die d in the an im al she lte r as a re sul t of se ve re he ar t w orm dis ea se 6 an d r el at ed

c om pli catio ns. 7 D eu ce —C ou nt15 8 { 48} Ba se d onthe e vid en ce in the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the re w as suf fi ci en t 9 evidence to supp ort De fendant’ s co nvictio n on Coun t 15 relating to Deuce. 10 Photog raphs taken at the tim e of the s ea rc h show that De uce w as chained outsid e. 1 1 T h e r e w a s a p i e c e o f p l yb o a r d p r o p p e dup o n s o me c i n d e r b l o c k s t h a tp r o v i d e ds o me 12 shade and shelter. H e did not h ave any water. His skin con ditio n was poor, and he had 13 old inj ur ie s and s cars on h is f ac e, e ar s, a nd l eg s. Deu ce al so h ad apun ct ur e w ound 14 on his fac e, a healing lacer ation on his leg, and an o p en wound on h is ear. He wa s 15 seve rel y

e m ac ia te d. H e ha d e xtr em e m usc le w as tin g ov er

his e nti re body . H is 16 ba ck bone ap pe ar ed to be ra ise d be ca use al l of the m

usc le s c onne ct ing his r ibs to his 17 ba ck bone w er e gone . H is h ip bon es stu ck out tr em en dous ly , a nd the m usc le on h is 18 he ad w as sig nif

ic an tly w as te d. D eu ce ’ s te eth ha d a ll be en c ut o r fi le d do w n to the 19 gum li ne . T he r oot s and n er

ve s w er e ex pose d, w hic h D r. N or ri s te sti fi ed , w oul d have27

1 be ene xtr em el y

pa inf ul. D eu ce was e uth an iz ed the sam e day

he w as r em ove d f

ro m 2 D e f e n d a n t ’s p r o p e rt y. 3 D es ir ee —C ou nt18 4 { 49} Ba se d onthe e vid en ce in the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the re w as suf fi ci en t 5 evidence to supp ort De fendant’ s convi ct ion on Count 18 relating to Desire e. 6 Ph oto gr ap hs t ak ena t the ti m e of the se ar chsho wthat D es ir ee w as c ha ine d ou tsi de 7 w ith out

w at er . H er

c ha in w as tangl ed to her post so tha t she co uld not m ove a ro und. 8 H er ski n co ndi tio n w as poor an d she ha d so re s onhe r fa ce , e ar s, le gs, a nd b ac k e nd. 9 De siree w as very

em aciated; her backbone and ribs protruded. D r. Norr is t estified that 10 she c oul d pu t he r fi nge rs be tw ee n D es ir ee ’ s ri bs. D es ir ee ’ s te eth w er e fi le d do w n w ith 11 the pul p e xpos ed

. I n th e she lte r, D es ir ee w as able to eat bu t w as e xhi bit ing m ult ipl e 12 sym ptom s of illness includi ng diarrhea, nasal discharge, and a cough. Desire e tested 13 posit ive for heart worm disease and wa s euthanized approxi m ately one m onth after 14 be ing r em ove d f

ro m D ef en dant’ s pr ope rty

in 2008

. A cc or din gly , w e al so c onc lud e 15 that the re is suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce in the r ec or d to sup port any of the the or ie s se t f

orth 16 in the j ur

y ins tr uc tio n one xtr em e cr

ue lty to an im al s.28

1 III. CON CLU SION 2 { 50} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e upho ld the co nst itu tio na lity of the a nim al c ru el ty 3 statut e an d a ff

irm D ef en dant’ s co nvi ct ion s fo r cr ue lty to an im al s an d e xtr em e cr ue lty 4 to an im al s. 5 { 51} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

6 7 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 8 WE CO NCUR:

9 10 JONA THA N B . S UTIN , Jud ge

11 12 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e