## FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : ANDREW B. ARNETT GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana BRIAN REITZ Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

EDW ARD W. CLEMONS, ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 73A01

- 1207

- CR

- 327 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Charles D. O’Connor, Judge Cause No. 73C01

- 1008

- FD

- 117
April 4, 2013 OPINION

– FOR PUBLICATION RILEY, Judge2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant

- Defendant, Edward Clemons (Clemons), appeals his conviction for Count I, possession of an animal for purposes of an animal fighting contest, a Class D felony, Ind. Code § 35

- 4 6

- 3

- 8; Count II, possession of animal fig hting paraphernalia, a Class B misdemeanor, I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 8.5; and Count III, promoting an animal fighting contest, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9.5. We affirm. ISSUE S Clemons raises three issues on appeal, whi ch we restate as: (1) Whether the State presented sufficient evidence beyond a r ea sonable doubt to sustain Clemon s ’ conviction for possession of an animal for purposes of an animal fighting contest as a Class D felony; (2) Whether the State presented sufficient e vidence beyond a rea sonable doubt to sustain Clemon s ’ conviction for possession of animal fighting paraphernalia as a Class B misdemeanor ; and (3) Whether the State presented sufficient evidence beyond a rea sonable doubt to sustain Clemon s ’ conviction for pro moting an animal fighti ng contest as a Class D felony.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY3

John Goodwin (Goodwin) is the Director of Animal Cruelty Policy at the Humane Society of the United States. He investigates animal cruelty and works with law enforcement t o eliminate animal fighting contests. His specialty is cockfighting

– animal fighting contests in which two roosters , also called ‘battle cocks’ or ‘game fowl ,’ fight each other, often to the death. As part of his work, Goodwin reviews trade journals on

c ock fighting. Goodwin obtained a 2010 issue of Pit Games magazine, a cock fighting trade journal, which contained a n article on Clemons entitled “The Breeder from Indiana

. ” ( State’s Exh. No. 2 )

. T he article noted that Clemons had been to the Philippines a bout twenty

- five times over the last ten years and was a guest at the “ World Slasher ” cockfighting contest held there in January 2010. (State’s Exh. No. 2). Clemons offered his views on breeding and its impact on producing successful battle cock s . Famil iar with differences between American, Mexican, and Filipino cockfighting , Clemons gave advice on how to breed birds compatible with Filipino fight ing styles, which require a less aggressive bird. “His bloodlines are reasonably priced at 1,000 dollars for a 6

- month

- old breeding trio [ i.e. , two hens and one rooster]. This price already includes shipping to California.” (State’ s Exh. No. 2 ). Although mentioning that cockfighting was illegal in Indiana and his insistence on obeying the law , Clemons bemoane d the activities of animal rights groups , deeming them “ anti

- human, ” rather tha n “ pro - animal. ” (State’s Exh. No. 2). The article featured pictures of Clemons posing with various breeds of roosters and with two persons renowned in the cockfighting world

. Goodwin eventually called Clemons and expressed4

an interest in purchasing battle cocks. Clemons told Goodwin what qualities were desirable in fighting roosters . Clemons said that he would sell his birds and that although cock fighting was a felony in Ind iana, it was only a misdemeanor in Kentucky. Thereafter, Goodwin obtained an aerial photograph of Clemons ’ farm in Shelby County, Indiana, which depicted housing for roosters, including barrels, breeding cages, and fly
cages. The following week, Goo dwin contacted John Bolin ( Officer Bolin ) from the Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC) and provided him with information gleaned from Clemons and the aerial map . On July 7, 2010, Officer Bolin conducted surveillance of Clemons’ f

arm and confirmed what the aer ial map had showed. U nder the guise of purchasing a truck , Officer Bolin later contacted Clemons and arranged a meeting at Clemons’ farm

. There, Officer Bolin observed numerous roosters placed in individual cages or t ethered to a barrel , which had a boar d on top with food and water . He noticed that a number of roos ters were missing their ‘wattles’ ( the fleshy protuberance at the throat ) and ‘combs’ ( the fleshy protuberance on the top of the head ) , and had shortened or removed spurs, the bone

- like horn on their legs. Clemons told Officer Bolin that he used to be a ‘cockfighter,’ but now only s ells, buys, and breeds roosters

. Officer Bolin obtained a sea rch warrant and along with other IGC officers returned to Clemons’ farm. There, they found several item s indicating that Clemons ran a cockfighting operation. In addition to the individual cages and tethered stands, these included boxes used to transport roosters , a smal l workbench with a toolbox containing5

grooming and surgical tools , some of which were s tained with blood and had small bits of feathers on them . A long knife used in Filipino cockfighting as an attachment to the rooster’s leg was found under the workbench in a coffee can. IGC o fficers also found medicines and vitamins with pictures of game fowl on the label; numerous tags with Clemons’ name on them; and magazines, videos, and instructional manuals on training battle cocks. One video depicted coc k fighting and its operation and one document, issued by the American Gamefowl Society, that “basi cally told a person, that is running a [cock fighting ] operation, what to say and what not to say when approached by law enforcement.” (Transcript p. 82). Approximately 193 birds were identified on the farm, with a ratio of one rooster to two hens. Man y roosters had been dubbed, meaning that their wattles and combs had been removed, and many had their spurs shortened. Fifty roosters were tethered to barrels. Officer Bolin also subpoenaed Clemons’ cell phone records, including a list of calls and text messages. The text messages included Clemons’ sale of gamefowl and preparation for shipping to the Philippines and a conversation between Cle mons and associate regarding sales of gamefowl and information on a cock fighting contest in Kentucky, including en try fees, dates, and how winners are determined

– “ [o]ne lives, one doesn’t.” (Transcript p. 115). Phillip Laux ( Officer Laux), also from the IGC, interviewed Clemons while other officers executed the search warrant. Clemons told Officer Laux that he sold 20 adult birds a year to customers in the United States, Mexico, and the Philippines. Clemons used information from cockfights to determine which fowl to keep and raise. Although6

Clemons insisted that he did not sell his birds to fight, he admitted that he had no control over how his customers used them. When asked whether he had any cock fighting paraphernalia, Clemons said no. IGC officers later brought the knife to Clemons, he identified the knife as his , and that it was a type of knife use d in F ilipin o cock fights. On August 10, 2010, the State filed an Information charging Clemons with Count I, possession of an animal for purposes of an animal fighting contest, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 8; Count II, possession of animal fighting paraph ernalia, a Class B misdemeanor, I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 8.5; and Count III, promoting an animal fighting contest, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9.5. On August 24, 2011 , Clemons filed an affidavit of religious beliefs with the trial court. According to Clemons, devotion to his religious beliefs required him to “breed, raise, and fight” and sacrifice gamefowl. (Appellant’s App. p. 159 ). He also announced his intention to move to the Philippines following trial where he would advocate against “evil animal right s activists from being allowed in that country.” (Appellant’ s App. p. 161 ). On May 20

- 23, 2012, a jury trial was held, following which Clemons was found guilty as charged. On June 21, 2012, the trial court sentenced Clemons to fifteen months’ each on Cou nts I and I I I and 180 days on Count II . All sentences were to run concurrently and suspended to probation, for an aggregate sentence of fif teen months of probation

. Clemons now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

D ISCUSSION AND DE CISION7 I. Standard of Review Clemons challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Perez v. State , 872 N.E.2d 208, 212

- 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied . We consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Id

. at 213. Regarding circumstantial evidence, such evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Fuller v. S tate , 674 N.E.2d 576, 578 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Reversal is appropriate only when reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences as to each material element of the offense. Perez , 872 N.E.2d at 213

.

II. Possessi ng an A nima l for an Animal Fightin g Contest Clemons first argu es that the State failed to present sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain his conviction for possessing an animal for the purpose of an animal fighting contest because there was no evidence that he participate d in cockfighting. Ind. Code § 35

- 46

- 3

- 8 criminalizes the purchase or possession of animals “for the purpose of using the animal in an animal fighting contest.” An animal fighting contest refers to an organized and intentional “conflict between two (2) o r more animals.” I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 4. To convict Clemons, the State would need to prove beyond a8

reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally purchased or possessed an animal for the purpose of an animal fighting contest. See I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 8. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Clemons ran a cockfighting operation. Clemons admitted possession of the 193 birds found on his farm. The gender

ra tio was two or three roosters for every hen. Goodwin testified that this was indicative of a coc kfighting operation. Several State witnesses testified that dubbing is a common practice in cockfighting as the wattles and combs bleed profusely when attacked. A majority of Clemons’ roosters had been dubbed , yet no ne of his hens were dubbed. Approxima tely fifty roosters were tethered to cages with feed and water placed on top of barrels. Goodwin explained that food and water were kept at this height to condition the
roosters for fighting . A number of roosters were found with shortened spurs thereby

a llowing for weapon to be fitted to their legs. Numerous medicines and dietary supplements were found which could be used to strengthen the birds. Finally, IGC officers found cockfighting magazines, training regimens, and grooming tools. In sum, all of t he foregoing evidence was sufficient to sustain Clemons’ conviction for possessing an animal for the purpose of using the animal in an animal fighting contest. Clemons argues that there was no evidence that he actually participated in cockfighting and there was “no probative evidence that [he] had these animals on his farm to fight.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 13 ). T his argument is disingenuous. Although attempting to pass himself off as merely a breeder, Clemons is an acknowledged “Christian cocker” whose duty in life i s to “breed, to raise, and to fight” game fowl.9

(Appellant’s App. p. 159). The Pit Games magazine contained his advice for breeding champion battle cocks. He admitted selling birds to others, and admitted that he did not know what they wo uld do with them. Clemons estimated that 95% of his birds sold to American customers were used for show, thereby implying that the remaining five percent were used for other purposes. Moreover, Clemons admitted that he had no show birds on his farm becau se an “absolutely perfect specimen” was required for a rooster to be a show bird. (Tr. p. 396). Furthermore, w hen persons inquire d about purchasing battle cocks, Clemons responded that he had brood stock and would s ell them a ro oster accompanied by two hens. Goodwin testified that Clemons’ sale of battle tested cockfighting bloodlines by definition requires the use of birds that have engaged in cockfighting. Although Cl emons explain ed that his birds were tethered to prevent them from attacking other bi rds, given medicines to restore health, and dubbed to protect the birds from cold water, these explanations are equally consistent with the grooming and training of battle cocks and operating a cockfighting operation. In sum, Clemons’ arguments are simply requests to judge the credibility of the witnesses and reweigh the evidence , which we will not do. See Perez , 872 N.E.2d at 213.

III

. Possession of Animal Fighting Paraph er nalia Clemons next challenges his co nviction for poss e ssion of animal fight ing paraphernalia. A lthough he acknowledges ownership of the Filipino knife found on his10

property, Clemons disputes that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed it with the intent to commit an animal fighting contest violation. We di sagree. Animal fighting paraphernalia includes equipment used to train or condition animals for participation in an animal fighting contest. I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 4.3

. Knowingly or intentionally p ossessi ng such paraphernalia with the intent to violate I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9 is a Class B misdemeanor. I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 8.5. Pursuant to I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9, an animal fighting violation consists of the knowing or intentional ( 1) promotion or staging of an animal fighting contest; (2) use of an animal in a n animal fighting contest; or (3) attend ance at an animal fighting contest with an animal one’s possession

. See T.J. v. State , 932 N.E.2d 192, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Thus, to convict Clemons, the State was required to show that Clemons knowingly or intentionally posse ss ed the animal fighting paraphernalia with the intent to commit an animal fighting contest violation

. See I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 8.5. Clemons argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the State did not prove that he had the int ent to violate I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9. Intent involves a person’ s state of mind, and the fact finder can “infer its existence from surrounding circumstances when determining whether the requisite intent exists.” Goodner v. State , 685 N.E.2d 1058, 1062 (Ind. 19 97). At trial, Clemons identified the knife as an article used in cockfighting contests and admitted that it was his. IGC officers also found numerous items on Clemons’ property that Officer Bolin later testified we re consistent with use in cock fighting. I n additio n to the Filipino knife, these included dubbing shears,11

medicines and supplements, cock fighting training manuals , videos and periodicals , a s well as exercise equipment

. Although Clemons maintains that he had n ever intended to use the knife in a cockfight , it was reasonable for the jury to disbelieve h im and infer that the knife and the other , numerous items of paraphernalia were in fact intended to be used in violat i on of I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9. We therefore affirm Clemons’ conviction.

IV

. Promot ing an A nimal Fighting Contest Finally, Clemons challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for promoting an animal fighting contest
. He argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sust ain his conviction for promoting an animal fighting contest because he did not possess the Filipino knife with the requisite intent and there was no indication “that he was training any of these birds to participate in an animal fighting contest.” (Appell ant’s Br. p. 16 ). Under I.C. § 35

- 4 6

- 3

- 9. 5 , a person promot es an animal fighting contest if he: a) possesses animal fighting paraphernalia with the intent to violate I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9; and b) “p ossesses, harbors, or trains” an animal that bears scars, wo unds, or injuries “consistent with participation in or training for an animal fighting contest.” We have already concluded that Clemons possessed animal fighting paraphernalia with the intent to violate I.C. § 35

- 46

- 3

- 9

. In addition , there is sufficient evidence to show that Clemons possessed, harbored, and trained roosters bearing scars, wounds, or injuries consistent with participation or training for an animal fighting contest.12

IGC o fficers located several roosters with their spurs, wattles, and comb shortened

or removed

– all of which left a mark or scar on the bird. D ubbing is a common practice in cockfighting. Clemons, who treated his birds without the assistance of a veterinarian, had vitamins and medications he provided to the birds that “mig ht be us e d in cockfighting ” or that “have an application in cockfighting .” (Tr. p. 395). Although Clemons points out that no treadmills, exercise wheels, or sparring equipment was found on the farm, the jury heard evidence on how the roosters were tethered to barrels and made to jump up to reach their food. In sum, Clemons has invited us to reweigh the evidence but we decline to do so. See Perez , 872 N.E.2d at 213. Here, there was evidence more than sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clemons promoted an animal fighting contest. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Clemon s ’ convictions for possession of an animal for purposes of an animal fighting contest, p ossession of animal fighting paraphernalia , and for promot ing an animal fighting contest. Affirmed. BAKER, J. and BARNES, J. concur