Commonwealth v. Crawford
24 A.3d 396
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Mersereau of PETA investigated an eBay ad for gothic kittens with piercings and docking tails; Crawford, a dog groomer, sold four kittens for $100 and pierced/docked them without anesthesia.
- Kyle, a PETA field worker, posed as a buyer and observed three kittens with ear piercings, a docked tail, and a tail-band; Crawford admitted performing piercings and tail docking.
- Dr. Sankey, a veterinarian, found inappropriate ear piercings and tail docking, removed the piercings, and treated infections; he concluded the kittens were maimed and disfigured.
- Dr. Merch, a veterinary forensic expert, testified the 14-gauge needle was inappropriate for kittens, piercings caused ongoing pain, and banding tail docking was improper and painful.
- Crawford was convicted by jury of one count of cruelty to animals (a 5511(a)(2.1)(i)(A)) and acquitted on the other counts; Judge Gartley sentenced her to intermediate punishment and probation for related offenses.
- Evidence showed Crawford admitted piercing without anesthesia, stated piercing was done because it was “neat,” and that the acts caused pain and potential lasting harm to the kittens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutes are vague as applied to Crawford | Crawford argues 5511(a)(2.1)(i)(A) and 5511(c)(1) lack notice | Crawford contends statutes are vague and fail due process | Statutes are not vague as applied; provide fair notice |
| Whether the evidence proves willful/malicious intent | Commonwealth shows circumstantial evidence of intent from conduct | Crawford argues lack of demonstrated intent | Evidence supports willful/malicious mens rea; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tomey, 884 A.2d 291 (Pa.Super.2005) (definition of wanton/cruel and standard for cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Hackenberger, 795 A.2d 1040 (Pa.Super.2002) (reckless disregard sufficiency for malice in cruelty cases)
- Commonwealth v. Ingram, 926 A.2d 470 (Pa.Super.2007) (malice defined as wicked disposition and cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Kling, 731 A.2d 145 (Pa.Super.1999) (recklessness standard for malice in cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 289 Pa.Super. 399, 433 A.2d 511 (Pa.Super.1981) (mindset inferred from conduct; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732 (Pa.Super.2007) (vagueness standard and fair notice)