State v. Graves, 2017 Ohio 6942

Background

On June 26, 2016, John O. Graves parked his van in an unshaded Kroger parking lot on a hot, humid day (about 92°F, feeling like 98°F) and left his stepson’s yellow Labrador inside with the windows fully closed.
Witnesses (Tyler and Christine Saxton) observed the dog panting, lethargic, and ‘‘apathetic,’’ and informed Graves and Kroger customer service; Graves told them he "does it all the time."
The Saxtons called 9-1-1; Hamilton Township Officer Goodpaster arrived, observed the dog’s worsening panting and lethargy, and unlocked the van after waiting for Graves, placing the dog into an air-conditioned cruiser.
Graves was charged under R.C. 959.13(A)(3) (carry or convey an animal in a cruel or inhumane manner), tried in bench trial, convicted, and sentenced to suspended jail time, probation, costs, and a $250 fine.
Graves argued (1) the statute is void for vagueness and overbroad (as applied), and (2) insufficient evidence/against manifest weight because the state failed to prove recklessness and harm; the trial court convicted and the Twelfth District affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 959.13(A)(3) is unconstitutionally vague as applied	Statute gives adequate notice; conduct here falls within common understanding of cruelty	Graves: statute fails to give reasonable notice that leaving a dog briefly in a warming car is criminal	Not vague as applied — a person of ordinary intelligence would know leaving a dog locked in a sealed vehicle in those conditions is cruel
Whether R.C. 959.13(A)(3) is overbroad	Statute regulates animal transport, not protected expression or travel rights	Graves: statute criminalizes benign conduct (leaving a family pet); asserts Fourteenth Amendment right to travel	Not overbroad — does not implicate First Amendment; no substantial intrusion on protected activity; does not infringe right to travel
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove recklessness	Testimony and circumstances (heat, sealed van, dog’s condition, warnings) prove heedless indifference	Graves: believed dog tolerated heat; had left dog briefly before; performed thermometer test showing slower heat rise	Evidence sufficient — rational trier of fact could find recklessness based on conditions, dog’s behavior, prior warnings
Whether conviction is against manifest weight because no harm occurred	State: suffering (lethargy, heavy panting, increasing distress) occurred and harm is not required as element	Graves: dog suffered no proven injurious harm; only temporary discomfort	Not against manifest weight — factfinder could credit officers/witnesses; unnecessary suffering and failure to provide remedy were proven

Key Cases Cited

State v. Collier, 62 Ohio St.3d 267 (statutes presumed constitutional; avoid invalidation if reasonably possible)
State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 (statute need not be drafted with scientific precision to be enforceable)
State v. Phipps, 58 Ohio St.2d 271 (void-for-vagueness standard: statute must give fair notice)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60 (presumptions and rules of construction applied to uphold statutes)