Commonwealth v. Baumgartner
206 A.3d 11
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On March 9, 2017, Charles Baumgartner (Appellant) brought his pit bull “Menace” to the area of 14th and Swatara Streets where Menace fought a pit bull owned by Adam Aviles; Appellant slapped and encouraged Menace to engage the other dog.
- Video and eyewitness testimony (Evelyn Lewis, neighbors, and a social-media video) showed Appellant physically and verbally provoking Menace to fight; Appellant later admitted slapping the dog and bringing it to the scene in a recorded interview.
- Aviles sustained injuries after the dog fight and a subsequent assault by others; Appellant was charged with animal fighting under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5511(h.1)(1) (in effect at the time) and assault-related counts (he was acquitted of assault counts at trial).
- A jury convicted Appellant of animal fighting; the trial court sentenced him to 11½ to 23 months’ imprisonment; Appellant filed a post-sentence motion and appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence as to the statute’s element “for amusement or gain.”
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that Appellant caused or permitted animal fighting and that it was committed “for amusement or gain,” applying the usual sufficiency-of-evidence standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Baumgartner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Appellant committed animal fighting under §5511(h.1)(1) | Commonwealth: testimony, video, and Appellant’s admission show he brought Menace, provoked the fight, and encouraged it — proving he caused/permitted the fight | Baumgartner: Commonwealth failed to prove the statutory mens rea/motive element “for amusement or gain”; the terms are vague and not established by the evidence | Held: Sufficient evidence; jury could find Appellant caused/permitted the fight and acted for "amusement or gain" (interpreted by common meaning as pleasurable diversion or personal/pecuniary advantage/retribution) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Giulian, 141 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (statutory interpretation principles and reliance on plain meaning)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 28 A.3d 898 (Pa. 2011) (use of dictionary definitions when statute lacks defined terms; strict construction of penal statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate standard for sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Craven, 817 A.2d 451 (Pa. 2003) (purpose of animal cruelty provisions and applicability to organized fights)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 588 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 1991) (affirming convictions for animal fighting—cockfighting context)
- Commonwealth v. Balog, 672 A.2d 319 (Pa. Super. 1996) (upholding cruelty statute against vagueness/overbreadth challenges in fighting context)
- Commonwealth v. Tapper, 675 A.2d 740 (Pa. Super. 1996) (sufficiency review in animal cruelty contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (affirming convictions for physical abuse of a dog under cruelty statutes)