Nicholas David Pelloni v. Commonwealth of Virginia
65 Va. App. 733
Va. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Nicholas Pelloni, who was caring for several boxer puppies and an adult female, was charged with felony cruelty to animals after animal control found the dogs emaciated, dehydrated, infested with parasites and fleas, and living amid feces; one puppy (Hannibal) was dead in a storage container.
- Veterinarian necropsy found Hannibal (6–7 weeks old) died primarily from severe starvation over 2–3 weeks, with contributing parasitic infection, pulmonary disease, and anemia.
- Appellant admitted he was responsible for the dogs’ care, had not taken them to a vet due to cost, knew Hannibal had been sick for about a week, watched Hannibal shake and die, and later signed surrender forms.
- At bench trial appellant moved to strike for insufficiency of evidence as to willfulness; the trial court denied the motion and found him guilty under Va. Code § 3.2-6570(F).
- On appeal, Pelloni argued the Commonwealth failed to prove he “willfully inflict[ed] inhumane injury or pain” causing death; the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved appellant "willfully inflict[ed] inhumane injury or pain" causing the puppy's death under Va. Code § 3.2-6570(F) | Evidence shows at most negligence or inability to pay; no proof of intent to cause pain or death | Facts (sole caregiver, prolonged starvation, no food/water, parasite infections, appellant watched puppy die and declined vet care) show conscious awareness or reckless disregard supporting willfulness | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to prove willfulness (criminal standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 439 (procedural standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666 (evidentiary standard on sufficiency review)
- Carter v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 528 (weight afforded factfinder; verdict not disturbed unless plainly wrong)
- Barrett v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 170 (definition of "willful" and when omissions satisfy willfulness standard)
- Ellis v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 548 (distinguishing negligence from willful conduct)
- Lambert v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 360 (failure to act requires circumstances to infer willfulness)
- Seegars v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 641 (interpretation of "knowingly and willfully" in a related statute)
- Woodard v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 276 (de novo review for statutory interpretation)