Court Opinion

ID: 9925748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 21:14:08.248239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:30.796426
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                                  No. 85896-3-I
                     Respondent,
                                                  DIVISION ONE
              v.
                                                  UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WILLIAM FREDYRICK DAHN, a/k/a
WILLIAM FREDRICK DAHN,

                     Appellant.

       HAZELRIGG, A.C.J. — William Dahn challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence after his conviction at trial on four counts of animal cruelty in the first

degree based on the deaths of birds that were removed from his home by animal

control officers. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the

convictions and affirm.

                                      FACTS

       In late 2018, William Dahn was living in Roy, Washington, in a residential

home that he was also operating as an aviary called Heartland Farms.            On

December 18 of that year, Dahn was taken to the hospital by emergency personnel

and remained there for approximately three weeks.         Prior to leaving for the

hospital, he told his neighbor Greg Duckworth that he had been unable to care for

his animals for three days as a result of a fall and requested that Greg take care

of his animals while he was in the hospital, and Greg agreed.
No. 85896-3-I/2

        The next day, Greg’s wife Donna Duckworth 1 went to Dahn’s house to

attend to the animals. When she entered the house, she immediately noticed a

strong smell and that the house was “not clean.”                        Throughout the house,

Duckworth observed birds in cages that were encrusted with feces and had dirty

water dishes. She found that some birds had food and others did not. Duckworth

spent the next hour going through each cage, changing the water and filling the

food dishes. Concerned that the birds were not being properly cared for, she called

Pierce County Animal Control (PCAC) on December 20. Duckworth continued

caring for the birds by providing food and water until animal control officers

responded a few days later.

        On December 22, PCAC Officer 2 Jody Page responded to Duckworth’s

report about Dahn’s house. Page was joined by two deputies from the Pierce

County Sheriff’s Department who were assigned to secure the house and two other

PCAC officers, Brian Boman and Patrick Cassin. Despite noting conditions for the

47 birds located in Dahn’s home that were serious enough to justify seizure of the

animals, Page did not find any that were deceased. The PCAC officers were

familiar with the potential health effects of stress on birds and weighed the risks of

transporting them to another location. 3 Ultimately, arrangements were made to

transport all of Dahn’s birds that same day to the Rusty Bar Ranch (the Ranch), a

facility PCAC contracted with that was experienced in caring for exotic birds.

        1 For clarity, because they share the same last name, we refer to Donna by her last name

and Greg by his first name. No disrespect is intended.
         2 Page is now retired from the PCAC.
         3 Page testified that they “ha[d] to weigh the risks,” and that “[h]ealth issues, the cold, the

lack of hygiene” were risks to any birds remaining in the house. During testimony, Boman explained
the relevant considerations for transport, noting “we have to look at what’s in the best interests of
the animal . . . we will transport when an animal needs to be removed from a condition.”

                                                 -2-
No. 85896-3-I/3

        At the Ranch, the birds were unloaded from their cages (mostly by Kathy

Richardson, one of the owners of the Ranch) and placed in a large heated

observation room. The PCAC officers spent approximately three hours cleaning

the bird cages with a pressure washer and Richardson replaced the dirty food and

water dishes with clean ones full of food and water. The next day, after checking

on the birds and determining they were not in obvious distress, Richardson left to

purchase supplies for the birds. When she returned about three hours later, she

found dead birds in the cages. She testified a total of seven birds died, within the

first three days. Almost immediately, Richardson wrapped the deceased birds in

plastic bags and refrigerated them. She reported the deaths to PCAC, who later

came to retrieve the bodies of the birds. Four birds were sent for examination. 4

        On December 29, 2018, the PCAC delivered four dead birds to Dr. Jennifer

Ward, a veterinary pathologist, for necropsy. 5               Ward identified each of the

deceased birds as a conure and, among other diagnoses, concluded that each

showed evidence of marked, chronic emaciation. In January 2020, the State

charged Dahn with four counts of animal cruelty in the first degree by way of

starvation, dehydration, or suffocation pursuant to RCW 16.52.205. On October

28, 2022, the information was amended to include a summary of the coloring

and/or markings of each bird for purposes of identification; all four were described

therein as conures. The amended information also altered all four counts to charge

        4 The four sent for necropsy are the only birds referenced in the State’s charges.
        5 In her trial testimony, Ward defined necropsy as a postmortem examination of an animal

to determine the cause of its death, analogous to an autopsy for a human.

                                               -3-
No. 85896-3-I/4

Dahn with animal cruelty in the first degree by criminal negligence in starving each

of the four conures to death.

       Dahn proceeded to trial in November 2022. The jury heard testimony from

PCAC officers Page, Boman, and Cassin, as well as Richardson, the Ranch’s

other co-owner Raymond Strieck, Duckworth, veterinarians Dr. Bridget Ferguson

and Ward, and Danielle Motzer, one of Dahn’s former employees. Dahn also

testified in his own defense. The jury found Dahn guilty on all four counts. The

trial court imposed a standard range sentence of one year of community custody

with a condition restricting his ability to access or care for animals, ordered the

forfeiture of the surviving animals that were seized, and payment of restitution and

legal financial obligations.

       Dahn timely appealed.

                                    ANALYSIS

       Due process requires the State to prove each element of the charged

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Meza, 22 Wn. App. 2d 514, 537, 512

P.3d 608 (2022). Evidence is sufficient if, after viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prosecution, “any rational fact-finder could have found the

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Stewart, 12 Wn. App.

2d 236, 239, 457 P.3d 1213 (2020).

       “Evidence sufficiency challenges admit the truth of the State’s evidence and

all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it.” Id. at 240. Credibility

determinations are made by the trier of fact and, accordingly, we defer to the trial

court on issues of conflicting evidence, witness credibility, and persuasiveness of

                                       -4-
No. 85896-3-I/5

the evidence. Id.; see, e.g., State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 216

(1980) (explaining the question is not whether reviewing court finds guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt based on the evidence but whether any rational trier of fact could

have); State v. Bencivenga, 137 Wn.2d 703, 709, 974 P.2d 832 (1999) (only fact

finder may disregard theories it finds unreasonable, weigh evidence, and

determine witness credibility); State v. Johnson, 159 Wn. App. 766, 774, 247 P.3d

11 (2011) (reviewing court not entitled to substitute its evaluation of evidence for

that of the jury); State v. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 266, 401 P.3d 19

(2017) (“‘Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact’ and are not subject to

review.” (quoting State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990),

abrogated in part on other grounds by State v. Crossguns, 199 Wn.2d 282, 505

P.3d 529 (2022))).

        Thus, our review is “highly deferential to the jury’s decision.” State v. Davis,

182 Wn.2d 222, 227, 340 P.3d 820 (2014). However, evidence that is speculative

and based on conjecture is “scintilla evidence” that, alone, cannot support a

conviction. See State v. Zamora, 6 Wn. App. 130, 133-34, 491 P.2d 1342 (1971).

        The State’s amended information charged Dahn with four counts of animal

cruelty in the first degree, asserting that he “did unlawfully, feloniously, and with

criminal negligence starve a green sun conure . . . and, as a result, caused its

death.” 6 Accordingly, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Dahn acted with criminal negligence, that the birds died by starvation, and that

        6 Each count also included a physical description of each of the four birds, as did the

corresponding jury instructions and verdict forms.

                                               -5-
No. 85896-3-I/6

the deceased birds were conures. Dahn alleges that the State failed to do so on

all three elements of each of the four counts.

I.     Evidence of Criminal Negligence

       The State charged Dahn under RCW 16.52.205(2) which states that a

person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when that person,

       with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an
       animal, or exposes an animal to excessive heat or cold and as a
       result causes: (i) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that
       extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (ii)
       death.

RCW 16.52.205(2)(a). RCW 9A.08.010(1)(d) provides that a person is criminally

negligent when they fail “to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may

occur and [their] failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross

deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the

same situation.” Referencing the statute defining this particular mental state, Dahn

argues that he was not negligent because he experienced an unexpected medical

emergency that left him physically unable to care for his birds for three days.

       This defense theory, that the medical episode undercut the State’s proof on

this element of the charges, was presented to the jury and challenged by the State.

Dahn asserted that he suffered a fall on or about December 15, 2018 that

immobilized him on his back on the floor of the kitchen for three days. He claims

that, as a result of this incident and the injury he sustained, he was unable to reach

a phone to call emergency services until December 18. Dahn testified that the

doctors who treated him “didn’t have any clue” what caused his collapse and that

he had never experienced a similar episode before.            The only information

                                        -6-
No. 85896-3-I/7

presented to the jury about this incident was Dahn’s own testimony of what

occurred.

        However, as the State points out, even assuming the medical episode

occurred exactly as Dahn described and he was unable to care for his birds for

three days, a rational trier of fact could have found, based on the evidence before

them, that those three days alone could not have caused the conditions that

resulted in the birds’ deaths. When PCAC officers arrived at Dahn’s home, Cassin

began sketching an incident diagram of the layout of the house while Boman and

Page took photographs.           Page noted that there were 47 birds in the house,

including conures, Amazon parrots, and macaws. She described the house as

being cold and cluttered with “mothballs everywhere.” 7 Page observed that the

food dishes were full of mold and feces, and several birds did not have water. She

further noted that “the floors of the cages had caked-on feces that had been there

for a while” 8 and mold was growing in the cages.                   Boman described seeing

“mounds of feces” in the cages, and Cassin described observing both feces and

bird dander covering the cages.              Motzer testified that she observed similar

conditions in Dahn’s home in October 2018 after responding to Dahn’s

advertisement for a helper to care for the birds. More critically, Ward described

the emaciation she detected in the birds as “chronic,” and explained that she used

that term to mean that it had been ongoing for weeks or months, which was

         7 All three PCAC officers and Duckworth testified to a strong scent of mothballs throughout

the home. Additionally, Ferguson testified that birds are particularly sensitive to aerosolized
pollution and she would not recommend having mothballs near birds because they are a toxin.
         8 The defense objected to this testimony at trial, arguing that it was speculative, but the

judge overruled the objection.

                                               -7-
No. 85896-3-I/8

corroborated by Motzer’s testimony about her observations roughly two months

before the incident that resulted PCAC’s seizure and investigation.

       The State juxtaposed these conditions with the expected standard of care

for a bird owner; likely, at least in part, as a response to Dahn’s testimony that he

had previously owned a pet store that sold birds in Tacoma for 23 years and had

been breeding birds since the mid-1980s. Page described not only her training

and role as an animal control officer but also that, like Dahn, she had personal

experience with conures, and characterized the living conditions of the birds she

observed in Dahn’s home as “filthy.”       Ferguson explained the importance of

frequent cage cleaning to prevent bacterial infections. Duckworth, Richardson,

and Motzer all also stated they had previously or currently owned exotic birds and,

like Page, described the living conditions of Dahn’s birds with disapproval. Based

on this evidence, a rational trier of fact could have reasonably found both that the

State established the standard of care and that Dahn did not meet that standard

to the point that he acted in a criminally negligent manner with regard to the four

birds at issue here. Further, Ward and Motzer’s testimony supports a reasonable

inference that the findings from the necropsies that the birds suffered from

emaciation and muscle atrophy as a result of a period of neglect that, contrary to

Dahn’s defense theory, far exceeded the three days he was incapacitated as a

result of a medical episode.

II.    Evidence Birds Died by Starvation

       Next, Dahn asserts that, even if his conduct could be considered criminally

negligent, the State failed to prove that the birds died from starvation rather than

                                        -8-
No. 85896-3-I/9

the stress of being relocated. He also challenges the reliability of the necropsies

because they were performed 8-9 days after death rather than within 24 hours, as

Ferguson testified was necessary for useful results.

       Although Ferguson did testify that a necropsy on a bird should be performed

within 24 hours, Ward, a specialist in veterinary pathology who has been

performing necropsies for almost 20 years, testified that there were many variables

to the preservation of a body and that smaller birds in particular can “keep for days,

even weeks” if refrigerated quickly after death. Richardson testified that she

“almost immediately” wrapped the deceased birds in plastic bags and placed them

in the refrigerator after discovering they had died. Whether the necropsies were

performed under valid conditions, and therefore the results were reliable, was a

question of fact decided by the jury after hearing the testimony of the experts. The

verdicts demonstrate that the jury reasonably found Ward’s testimony to be

persuasive on this point. Again, we will not reweigh the evidence or the credibility

determinations of the jury. See Johnson, 159 Wn. App. at 774; Cardenas-Flores,

189 Wn.2d at 266.

       As to the main focus of this assignment of error, the State presented a

significant amount of evidence that the birds had died of starvation, to the exclusion

of other possible causes of death, such as stress from transport. When PCAC

transported the birds to the Ranch, they enlisted the help of Richardson, who had

personal experience in handling exotic birds. Richardson explained at trial that

she assisted in moving the smaller birds into the PCAC carriers, which were then

                                        -9-
No. 85896-3-I/10

placed in the heated cab of Page’s truck. 9 These measures were taken after the

PCAC officers had weighed the risks of transporting the birds at all. Both Ward

and Ferguson acknowledged that moving a bird to a new environment can be

stressful and, depending on the condition and age of the particular bird, stress can

be detrimental to the overall health of the animal. Page and Richardson also

acknowledged that stress can be detrimental to birds. But, Ferguson also testified

that the potential stress of moving and handling the birds “should not be fatal

unless there’s an underlying health problem.”

       Ward, who performed necropsies on all four of the birds, including

examining the muscle tissue on a microscopic level, testified that she “did not find

anything else that would explain” how the birds became so emaciated other than

starvation. She detailed how the extreme degree of muscle atrophy and loss of fat

tissue in the birds could not be explained by a lack of exercise. Again, when asked

what she meant by her diagnosis of “chronic” emaciation, Ward testified that she

meant the starvation “was going on for weeks to months” and that it “would not

happen in a short period of time.”

       Page and Richardson, both of whom had previously owned exotic birds and

were familiar with their care, testified to conditions indicative of starvation. Page

attested that the food dishes “had caked-on feces” and mold.                         Richardson

submitted that the “majority of the food did have feces, some of it had mold.”

Cassin also testified to seeing mold in the food dishes. Motzer testified that similar

conditions were present months before the birds were seized. Duckworth testified

       9 The larger birds were placed in a heated horse trailer in either their original cages or in

cages borrowed from the Ranch.

                                             - 10 -
No. 85896-3-I/11

that some birds had food in their cages and others did not. Viewing the testimony

of all of these witnesses in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient

evidence to support a rational trier of fact in finding beyond a reasonable doubt

that the birds died by starvation.

III.   Evidence Animals Were Conures

       Finally, Dahn argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the

deceased birds were conures. Specifically, he avers that there is “more than a

‘mere scintilla of evidence’ indicating the birds . . . were not [c]onures.” His framing

of the argument on this issue demonstrates that Dahn misunderstands the test this

court utilizes to assess a sufficiency of the evidence challenge. As we have

established, we do not reweigh evidence presented to the trial court or otherwise

resolve competing evidence. See Green, 94 Wn.2d at 221; Bencivenga, 137

Wn.2d at 709; Johnson, 159 Wn. App. at 774; Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d at 266.

       Richardson, who testified that she had extensive experience with exotic

birds, asserted that the dead birds were “psittaculas” and not conures. Dahn also

testified that he had two conures, not four. However, Ferguson, a veterinarian who

has been treating birds for approximately 25 years, testified that the term

“psittacine” is a term that is “synonymous with parrot,” and the parrot family

includes conures. She also provided a general physical description of conures

that was similar to the birds Ward described receiving for necropsy.

       Ward stated that each of the four birds submitted by PCAC was identified

as a conure and that part of her process in performing a necropsy includes

confirming that the information submitted with the animal is correct. Although she

                                         - 11 -
No. 85896-3-I/12

testified that she looks at the species identification submitted with the sample, she

also affirmed that each of her reports was based on her own “individual findings”

and that she was able to confirm the species identification based on her own

observations. Ward affirmatively testified, “I believe they were green [c]onures,” in

response to questioning about what type of birds she received on December 28,

2018 for necropsy. Finally, Dahn’s former employee, Motzer, testified as a State’s

witness and explained that some of the birds she saw in Dahn’s home were

conure-like. Taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to the State,

sufficient evidence was presented that could persuade a rational trier of fact that

the deceased birds were conures.

       Although reasonable minds could differ on how to evaluate this conflicting

testimony, the outcome of the trial ultimately rests on credibility determinations,

which may only by decided by the jury. The verdicts establish that the jury credited

the conclusions of veterinary experts Ferguson and Ward over the contrary

assertions of lay witnesses on the issue of whether the birds were conures, and

believed that the birds died as a result of starvation and that Dahn failed to meet

the standard of care for the birds such that he was criminally negligent.

       Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

                                       - 12 -