*1 10 Aim 636. Miеn op Opinion the Court. weapon was concealed indicated in the they weapons carried where not he should Courts should look rea to take lives. be used interpretations of than tortured rather sonable statutes, exceptions so as to reflect the thereto, Sergeant Kennedy legislature. v. intent weapons”, “Dangerous when Mich 494. narrowly should con statute, used Gogak (1919), People v. us. strued accept overly- inclined 260. This Court is possession shotgun technical defenses to which has been shortening barrel, altered man-killing People obviously weapon (see which is 500), (1945), Mich and almost without v. Vaines illegal possess exception under Federal statutes. USCA, 5851. Affirmed. and Quinn, JJ., concurred.
Levin v. PEOPLE OLARY. Court. Cruelty—Motion 1. Animals — Dismiss. eruelty charge of to animals for the reason to dismiss Motion anything no there was that defendant held, animals, guilty properly proof no henee that he denied, people’s at close case did the record where existing finding support a that defendant was inattentive required the animals that attention condition of [1-4, [5] What constitutes 6] Am Jur 4 Am Jur References 2d, 2d, Animals Criminal Law statutory for Points offense of §§ 27-31. eruelty Headnotes animals. 82 ALR2d Cruelty—No op Requirement 2. Same — Direct Proof. Unnecessary cruelty may be inflicted on animals inattention thus, condition; cruelty to animal require statute does not direct of such infliction of *2 eruelty (CL 752.21). 1948, § Cruelty—Record. 3. Same — cruelty held, of clearly Conviction to animals sustained testimony record where showed that some of defendant’s condition, animals were an emaciated that some bore the beatings, marks of and that was the defendant animals, although proof pro- there was no wilful failure vide 752.21). food and drink §
Dissenting Opinion.
Levin, J.
Cruelty—Medical
4. Animals —
Care.
The owner
an
does
violate the State
cruelty
prohibiting
by failing
to animals
(CL 1948, 752.21).
animal with medical care
§
5.
Criminal
Law —Construction
Statutes.
declaring
plain
Statutes
behavior criminal must be
and un-
ambiguous.
Cruelty—Inattention.
6. Animals —
cruelty
Motion to dismiss
to animals
reason
testimony
anything
that there was no
owner did
defendant
improperly denied,
destroy
to his
was
cows
since
failure
animals, provide
sick
the services
aof
(CL 1948,
veterinarian are not crimes under statute
Clair;
(Allan
St.
Miller
Appeal
J.
C.),
Division 2,
3, 1967,
Submitted
November
at Lansing.
(Docket
1,986.)
April 2,
No.
Decided
1968. Leave
to appeal
September 30, 1968. See
George to animals. cruelty Defendant Affirmed. appeals.
yVilliam Jr., Walsh, R. for defendant. Aрp appeals from his circuit Defendant Quinn, cruelty charge of on a jury conviction
court (Stat 752.21 Ann of CL in violation animals 28.161) imposed fol- and the sentence Eev Although alleges lowing conviction. appeal, argues 11 on this we find that issues properly one of those is us, 2 are before unacceptable remaining form. stated fоr consideration not raised below issues were they not before us. the trial court (1965), 1 Mich Willis people’s case, defendant moved At the close of the charge against him for the reason to dismiss any- there was no that defendant did thing that he animals, hence no pertinent guilty of toward them. The word- ing of the statute as follows: *3 having custody
“Anri of whoever otherwise, inflicts any as owner either animal, cruelty upon unnecessary fails same, proper food, drink, shelter, the same with * * * » weather, from questions denied and defendant motion was ruling by question, propriety his this first of jury justifying record contain evidence “Did the question defendant in- whether submission injury animals?” on his flicted transcript contains before closе people’s of some of the emaciated condition case of beatings marks of that some bore animals, of of the owner the animals. defendant was and that deprivation proper of of was no wilful There deprivation although the fact drink, food and from the inferable food and drink was th$ violation of emaciatеd condition, Olaby. People v. op the Court. showing or facts of wilfulness without not shown inferred. could wilfulness which from cruelty inflicting question of theOn position is untenable animals, defendant’s interpreted mean that direct statute is unless the proof required. refuse to such infliction agree restrictively interpret the statute so unnecessary cruelty may be trial court condition inflicted inattention people’s close of case record at the animals. holding support was inatten- that defendant existing that re- of the animals condition tive deny quired not error to It was attention. question jury determina- leave the
motion and Williams tion.
Following defend- dismiss, of his motion denial beyond testimony established His ant perаdventure testified. beaten, but, his animals were beating according was done others. him, precludes accepting defendant’s state- us This following question 2 in No. of claimed ment form:
“May con- owner of farm animals be omitting give medical certain victed omitting to obtain outside advice or veteri- care nary animals; medical carе for his “(1) §752.21 [Stat Under statute Ann 28.161]) duty express any 1962Rev does not which give nor care set out require obtaining standard care or of vet- *4 erinary injured care for animals, and
“(2) proof establishing Under a record devoid of practice by the existence of or custom followed generally inferentially animal actually owners or or known to defendant?” Apr op the Court. question,
If there is a second would be whether the record before us the conviction, sustains clearly does.
Affirmed. J., P. J.
McGregor, Quinn, concurred with (dissenting). people proved While Levin, en- animals had been the defendant’s the defendant inflicted such deavored to show that proofs injuries, people not or confine their claims to evidencе. such majority ground affirm the that the record by jury support finding “that de would fendant was inattentive existing condition of the required may indeed, attention.” One animals that by majority violate the statute inatten hold, as the cruelty, torture, and the tion or nonfeasance. Wilful all needs of However, like not shown. need be The statute are not covered the statute.1 satisfy particularizes that an owner must those needs legal must water, and shelter Pood, or sanction. risk requires provided. think I do not be a sick animal. owner had died some time shows that record cows alleged prior 1,1963.2 offense, June date tortured, ing beaten, mutilated, inflicts vide the tinuing owner of a herd ment dollars, works, cruelly beats, so (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § “Whoever weather, shall, overdriven, charge unnecessary cruelty A. D. 1963 complaint charges tortures, jail same tormented, mutilates, both sueh overdrives, overloaded, custody exceeding or torments, [*] cattle eruelly deprived every * * fine and or overloads, that: eruelly kills, upon the food, drink, any animal, inflicted driven killed, any months deprives imprisonment.” “On offense, George when necessary drives same, either or causes shelter, fine by animal, 1st Olary overloaded, when punished necessary as day sustenance, [*] CL or cruelty upon overloaded, * * procures June exceeding whoever fails to overworked, sustenance, being otherwise, imprison- and con- cruelly 752.21 to be over- hav- pro- *5 J. by Levin, Dissenting cow was found emaciated 1 injured, that date On The officers. law-enforcement pasture in the for her wounds attention” “required injured cow there however, hold majority, and emaciation. food deprivation proper of wilful no the wounds? What, then,-of and drink. define specifically did not judge trial
While the with the synonymous 3 —which is “indifference” nature “inattentive” —the term majority’s was that or inattentiveness of indifference claim not himself if the had even them and deprived cow surviving 2 dead cows and “inflicting unnecessary food, he was guilty emaciated cruelty” failing injured, to treat the authorities cow found in pasture June 1. with our has not filed a brief prosecutor he would contend We do not know whether
Court. be be- properly that the defendant could convicted in the found the authorities hy cause cow was society a humane barn, rather than in the as pasture have It was inspector it should been. June opined of the weather told county. in St. Clair food, 1948, proper same, drink, wilfully provide the same failed shelter, contrary CL protection from the weather 28.161).” (Stat 1962 Rev 752.21 Ann § pre- charge concerning issue entire the factual court brought charge is jury here follows: “The sented to the decision (Stat provides CL 752.21 under Ann statute whieh as follows: material, 28.161), reading part I is Rev feel sustenance, necessary tortures, tormеnts, deprives of ‘whoever cruelly so beats, mutilates, eruelly procures kills or to be causes sustenance, cruelly tortured, tormented, necessary deprived of having beats, mutilates, cruelly any kills animal and whoever infliets charge unnecessary custody as or otherwise animal either cruelty upon wilfully fails to the same or weather, food, drink, protection proper from the shelter or same with George is punished.’ The here under statute. shall be cattle, being Olary, inflicted the owner of herd failed same and the same with contrary food, drink, from the shelter weather statute, presents ques- as stands denied and whieh to the tion for which you to Torture inflicted mere determine. inattention anything resulting it indifference criminal Dissenting Opinion by Levin, inspector of the barn. The condition or the less in the barn, the cow would not state suffer belonged barn for treatment. brings I believe the merito- us to what This *6 appeal, namely, question by presented this rious unnecessary cruelty” “inflict[s] a farmer whether failing provide owns to on an animal he prosecution called a veterinarian treatment. The who testified that had been injured on
the abscess the cow developing period days. a to over sought had not the of a The defendant services vet- during judge erinarian. The trial of the stated the course argument of to dismiss, defendant’s motion following people’s рroofs, the conclusion the obviously suffering open the a cow from owner unnecessary cruelty wounds inflicts if he doesn’t put misery “either her out her or call the doctor attempt to do so treat her or her”; treat certainly said, he later the defendant “could have put either treated or the animal out of its suffer- ing.” charged jury: He the “Torture inflicted mere inattention criminal indifference to it and anything resulting may from it be sufficient to find and warrant a conviction under this statute.” my opinion
In owner an animal by failing does not violate the statute imposes the animal with medical care. The statute penalty a a custodian owner who “inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon sаme, fails proper same with food, drink, shelter the animal. Under penned up sufficient cruel to is brief and as I Later: To have covered “I permit will Xthink put them in find and warrant the barn. not bother to restate the claims of you cow the circumstances the initial know them.” was graze barn part aggravating a conviction of this might in the have been the basis of a pasture charge, under well have been less pitiful because the ease than to parties tbis condition of statute.” keep except Dissenting by Levin, protection The owner’s from the weather.” obligations animal under financial provides discharged food, drink, he when He the weather. does shelter pro obligation veterinarian, a hire not have the expenses to sustain and incur other medicine vide injured animal. Regarding himself, there had that defendant no evidence in record competence he animal, or as what to treat might not do which have done that he did animal’s distress. would have alleviated the So misery, putting out of this far as the animаl its to rest con- a thin reed on which record that is period developed viction. The abscess over prop- days. Might have 30 to 45 not the defendant hoped healing erly processes that the natural would nor cure the infection? Neither the veterinarian anyone else testified that the cow’s illness ter- *7 that a minal, the assistance of veterinarian indeed had or, been, should have been obtained it that the anything veterinarian could have done for ani- point during 30-to-45-day At mal. period in what time obliged dispatch was the defendant cow? forget not that we a criminal behavior criminal construe
We should declaring Legislation statute. unambiguous “plain 'he that who
must bе so may whether his conduct read, runs’ and understand provisions.” its v. Ellis in is violation (1918), 157, peril liberty required life, one at “No penal meaning speculate property as to the complaint “deprived that the defendant does neeessary Furthermore, is clear it from sustenance”. [the cow] depriving prohibition against that an animal of
the fact sary “neces- everyone, applies to custodians and sustenance” owners, language impose that was not intended that other to provide Any duty “necessary sustenance”. inter- affirmative Act? by Levin,
Dissenting Opinion Jersey 306 US Newv. Lanzetta statutes.” 890). Ed 888, 83 L (59 619, CtS expressed in alleged terms of crime is Where {i.e., act of an affirmative commissiоn infliction sought cruelty) unnecessary is to hold and it inattention, indiffer- {i.e., nonaction appraising especially careful in ence) he we should duty imposes language that a claim part this case, attentive —in to be of the defendant thereby avoid treatment infliction cruelty. avoid substi- should judgment for that tuting sensitivities our own legislature. yet legislаture made it a crime has not of an the owner misery, put least where clear it out of its fail to —at have should been no evidence
there is to minate inevitably ter- that the would the owner illness death; provide treatment, least to fail himself to —at qualified he where there is no evidence that provide helpful provide; that he failed to of a medi- veterinarian, the services expendi- cines and the like without limitation as to ture, least where there is no —at might helpful such services or would have been alleviating entirely apart the animal’s distress, anything whether could have been done that recovery. have aided its legislature specifically expendi- defined the required pro- tures an owner is to make. He must pretation v. affirmative 387, 393). owner of tlie [109] 6 See, California U Da “The Void for would make L See, also, Rev 67 (1953), (1960), City [344] superfluous Vagueness *8 duty US and Justice Black’s Detroit 357, provide food, drink, tbe [362] Doctrine in the v. Bowden imposition (73 S Ct (1967), dissent 293, 295, on a custodian or Supreme and skelter. in [97] Edelman Court”, L Ed 649 People v. Dissenting by Levin, J. shelter, water, fоod, vide justified adding are not weather. concerning the owner’s financial
legislative mandate simply legislature to im has failed burdens. duty pose of a sick animal the the owner on This provide problem its medical treatment. be legislative thoughtful deserving considera legislative problem, judicial not a is a tion, but questions juries to determine suсh allow one. To hoc, ad hominem basis an ad as this reading legislative a fair inconsistent questions language, serious constitutional raises but process of both due clauses our State under questions constitutions,7 best avoided Federal interpretation impose eschewing an which would unexpressed, duty pro undefined owners sick animals.8 vide (331 (1958), NM 51, 65 v. In State Buford 787), the held 1110, 1115,82 ALR2d court New P2d Mexico’s prohibit to animals statute did holding following cockfighting, made the so observation: strictly construed since “Penal statutes certainty every to know with man should be able committing a crime. v. United States he is
when
Reese
(23
563);
(1875),
L Ed
State v.
214,
92 US
(143
880).
(1943),
61 Ariz
P2d
Such
Ikeda
necessary to consti
should define the act
certainty
persоn
that the
the offense with
tute
violating
he does it.”9
that his act is criminal when
it must know
significant
I also think
that the extensive an-
following
case,
notation
the cited
“What constitutes
(1943),
7 US
See 16 Am
Accord:
422, 429.
Const,