Opinion ID: 1836903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Simbach

Text: In contrast to the First District's decision, the Second District in State v. Simbach, 742 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), held that section 812.12(2) did require proof of a specific intent of cruelty. In Simbach, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss felony animal cruelty charges under section 828.12 because [the defendant] did not intend for the animal to endure a cruel death or any unnecessary pain or suffering. Simbach, 742 So.2d at 366. In a brief analysis, the Second District concluded, We agree with the trial court's interpretation of section 828.12 as requiring a specific intent to cause a cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Id.