People v. Curtis, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1042

Defendant Margaret Curtis housed 87 cats in a two-bedroom townhouse, with 82 not personally owned but kept indoors; one cat, A209057, was singled out as 'special to the owner'.
On Sept. 8, 2008, animal control removed the cats; several had upper respiratory infections and the residence was described as overcrowded and unsanitary with limited litter boxes.
Defendant was charged with two counts under 510 ILCS 70/3: (c) failure to provide veterinary care and (d) failure to provide humane care and treatment for cat A209057.
At a bench trial, the State presented veterinary and animal-control testimony; defendant testified she owned only five cats and claimed the others were strays.
The trial court found Curtis guilty on count II (humane care and treatment) and sentenced her to 24 months’ conditional discharge, 2 days in jail, and various fines; she was acquitted on count I (veterinary care).
Curtis appealed, challenging the vagueness of section 3(d), the sufficiency of the evidence, and the calculation of fines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Section 3(d) vagueness as applied	Statute requires no impermissible vagueness; conduct here clearly humane or not.	Section 3(d) is vague and fails to provide notice or standards to avoid arbitrary enforcement.	Section 3(d) not void for vagueness as applied.
Sufficiency of the evidence for humane care violation	Record shows dangerous overcrowding and disease risk; defendant failed to provide humane care.	Defendant cared for some cats and ownership of others was disputed; no direct proof that A209057 belonged to her.	Evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to prove violation.
Fines and costs calculation	Fines properly calculated under 725 ILCS 240/10(b) and 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1; mental-health and child-advocacy fees treated as fines.	Some assessments improperly included; only $10 surcharge and $4 victim’s fund were authorized by statute.	Fines properly calculated; order affirmed.

People v. Wooters, 188 Ill. 2d 500 (1999) (statutory vagueness challenge may be raised on appeal)
Larson, 379 Ill. App. 3d 642 (2008) (vagueness analysis requires common-sense application; due process standards)
Izzo, 195 Ill. 2d 109 (2001) (defining standards for what constitutes unlawful conduct)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (perfect clarity not required; reasonable standards exist)
Boand, 362 Ill. App. 3d 106 (2005) (statutory validity; burden on challenger; de novo review)
Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d 413 (2000) (statutory interpretation and constitutional validity)
Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274 (2004) (sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)