Commonwealth v. Raban
31 A.3d 699
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant's dog Muncy attacked another dog, Hubble, on July 7, 2009, while unrestrained on Appellant's premises and crossing Barrington Road.
- Hubble sustained no long-term injury; neighbor Sawicki observed the incident and Appellant later placed an electric fence collar on Muncy.
- Officer Fredericks cited Appellant after speaking with Alvin, Sawicki, and Alvin's dog owner; Appellant admitted the attack.
- Appellant had a prior conviction for violating 3 P.S. § 459-305(a)(1) on January 21, 2009 for failing to confine a dog.
- Bench trial occurred on August 6, 2010; the court convicted Appellant under Section 305(a)(1) and sentenced six months’ probation and a $500 fine.
- Appellant timely appealed, challenging mens rea, sufficiency of confinement conduct, and de minimis nature of the incident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3 P.S. § 459-305(a)(1) requires mens rea | Raban argues strict liability; no mens rea required. | Raban contends statute lacks intended strict liability interpretation. | Section 305(a)(1) does not require mens rea; strict liability affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for failing to confine within owner’s premises when the wife allegedly allowed the dog out | Raban asserts lack of conduct by him caused confinement failure; wife’s actions pivotal. | Raban as owner is responsible; dog left premises regardless of wife’s actions. | Evidence supports owner liability; conviction sustained. |
| Whether the incursion was de minimis under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 312 | Raban claims the incident was de minimis. | Raban argues public safety concerns require negation of the charge. | Incursion not de minimis; conduct falls within § 459-305(a)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Baehr v. Commonwealth ex rel. Lower Merion Township, 414 A.2d 415 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (science of strict liability for dog confinement; public safety purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Glumac, 717 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 1998) (premises concept; confinement includes control over public access)
- Miller v. Hurst, 448 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 1982) (public safety objective of dog confinement statute)
- Commonwealth v. Flamer, 848 A.2d 951 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence and related principles)