328 Conn. 21
Conn.2018Background
- Defendant Delano Josephs was convicted after a bench trial of one count of cruelty to animals under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-247(a) for shooting his neighbor’s cat (Wiggles) with a BB gun.
- Evidence: a veterinarian’s radiograph showed a metal object consistent with a BB lodged near Wiggles’ spine; a neighbor (Bombard) testified he heard BB-gun shots and saw the defendant with a BB gun acting like a hunter; animal-control testified the defendant admitted owning a BB gun and shooting at the cats to scare them.
- Trial court found the state proved the elements beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced Josephs to 30 days (execution suspended) and six months’ probation.
- Josephs appealed asserting three claims: (1) the court applied incorrect mens rea (general vs specific intent) for the statute’s “unjustifiably injures” clause; (2) the phrase “unjustifiably injures” is unconstitutionally vague (facial and as applied); and (3) insufficient evidence supported the conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed, addressing mens rea, vagueness, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Josephs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea for “unjustifiably injures” in § 53-247(a) | Statute’s plain text and structure show legislature intended only general intent for that clause | Statute requires specific intent to injure (i.e., intent to harm the animal) | Court held only general intent required; specific intent not required for that clause |
| Vagueness of “unjustifiably injures” | A person of ordinary intelligence would understand shooting a neighbor’s cat with a BB gun is unjustifiable; defendant’s conduct falls within statute’s core | Phrase is vague facially and as applied because it does not define when injury is justifiable | Court held statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied: defendant’s conduct fell within unmistakable core of prohibited conduct |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove defendant shot Wiggles | Circumstantial evidence (BB in cat, defendant seen with BB gun in shooting stance, defendant’s admission to shooting at cats) sufficient | No witness saw the defendant shoot Wiggles; no proof the BB matched his gun or that he owned it when injury occurred | Court held evidence sufficient; reasonable inferences supported conviction |
| Relationship to § 53-247(b) harsher mens rea | Legislature intentionally used different mens rea and penalties across subsections; (b) employs specific intent for more severe crimes | Because (b) and (a) overlap, (a) should require same specific intent as (b) | Court rejected defendant’s parity argument, noting different statutory structure and penalties justify distinct mens rea |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Gregan v. Koczur, 287 Conn. 145 (interpretation and vagueness principles)
- State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451 (statutory ambiguity and construction)
- State v. Roy, 173 Conn. 35 (distinguishing general and specific intent)
- State v. Jordan, 314 Conn. 354 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (framework for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795 (facial vagueness doctrine/core of statute concept)
- State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (use of external sources to construe statute)
- Woolf v. Chalker, 31 Conn. 121 (historical common-law principles on killing animals)
- Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership, 311 Conn. 301 (limitations on historical principles)
- Commonwealth v. Szewczyk, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 711 (pellet/BB gun shooting dog as unjustifiable under anticruelty law)
- Bartlett v. State, 929 So. 2d 1125 (repeated BB-gun shooting of animal constitutes unnecessary pain)