STATE v. GILCHRIST, 2017 OK CR 25

Background

In August 2015 George W. Gilchrist was charged with 13 counts of Cruelty to Animals for thirteen living dogs found chained or penned on his rural Grant County property. Two additional dogs (one decomposed on site, one later died) were also present.
At the preliminary hearing the State presented photographic evidence and veterinarian testimony showing each of the thirteen dogs was emaciated, dehydrated, had no fresh water or food, and required immediate medical care; the vet opined the dogs had not been fed or watered for 24–48 hours.
Each of the living dogs was separately chained or penned; some had wounds and infestation; one chained dog died of hyperthermia while in care.
The prosecutor charged one count per living dog (Counts 1–13). Gilchrist moved to quash Counts 2–13, arguing double jeopardy/statutory prohibition on multiple punishments because the dogs were found together and allegedly neglected during the same time period.
The district court granted the motion to quash and dismissed Counts 2–13. The State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(4).
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the record supported separate counts for each animal under 21 O.S. § 1685 and the district court abused its discretion in quashing the counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State may charge separate cruelty counts for each animal found in one location	State: Section 1685 protects "any animal," so each animal may be a separate victim and separate count is proper	Gilchrist: Multiple counts constitute multiple punishments for the same offense because the animals were together and neglected during the same abandonment period	Held: Separate counts permissible; statute contemplates protection of individual animals and evidence showed separate deprivation for each dog; district court abused discretion
Whether preliminary hearing evidence supported bindover on Counts 2–13	State: Vet testimony and photos established probable cause each dog was abused/neglected and defendant responsible	Gilchrist: Evidence shows one continuous incident insufficient to support separate counts	Held: Probable cause satisfied for each count; evidence showed each dog separately deprived of food, water, shelter, and some lacked veterinary care
Whether dismissal implicates double jeopardy/statutory double punishment bar	State: Charging each animal does not violate double jeopardy because each animal is a separate victim under the statute	Gilchrist: Multiple counts punish the same course of conduct in violation of double jeopardy and § 11	Held: Court rejected defendant’s interpretation; no double jeopardy violation at preliminary hearing stage given statutory language protecting each animal
Whether the district court’s statutory interpretation of § 1685 was correct	State: § 1685’s singular “any animal” shows Legislature intended protection per individual animal	Gilchrist: § 1685 should be read to permit only a single count where animals were jointly abandoned	Held: Court interpreted § 1685 de novo and found the district court’s construction erroneous; statute permits individual-animal counts

Key Cases Cited

Tilley v. State ex rel. Scaggs, 869 P.2d 847 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993) (availability of State appeal under statutory provisions discussed)
State v. Truesdell, 620 P.2d 427 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) (jurisdictional limits on State appeals noted)
State v. Davis, 823 P.2d 367 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (motion to quash for insufficient evidence and State appeal authority)
State v. Franks, 140 P.3d 557 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (preliminary hearing evidence standards and bindover principles)
State v. Tran, 172 P.3d 199 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)