STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL A. HEARL
(AC 39463)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Argued December 7, 2017—officially released May 29, 2018
Sheldon, Keller and Eveleigh, Js.
**********************************************************
Thе “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
**********************************************************
Syllabus
The defendant, who had been convicted of nineteen counts of the crime of cruelty to animals in violation of statute (
1. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant‘s conviction of cruelty to animals, as the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant confined or had charge or custody of the goats, and failed to give them proper care or food, water and shelter: there was ample evidence to support a finding that the defendant confined or had charge or custody of the goats, as the defendant negotiated the lease for the barn and held himself out as the owner and caretaker of the goats, he frequently cared for the goats when he first brought them to the barn, he purchased hay and arranged for and paid K, a veterinarian, to euthanize certain goats, and the defendant had an extensive conversation with K about what was necessary to feed the herd and keep the kids warm; moreover, the defendant was the only person who asked the department about how to dispose of dead goats in the barn, there was no evidence that he ever advised the department to discuss the care of the goats with someone other than himself, and there was ample evidence to support the inference that the goats did not receive proper care or, alternatively, that they did not receive adequate food, water and shelter, as the goats were starving, riddled with parasites and diseases when they were confiscated, and they were not properly sorted while housed in the barn, where conditions were unsanitary and inadequate to provide them shelter from the elements.
2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury on criminal negligence; our Supreme Court has recently determined that general intent, rather than criminal negligence, is the appropriate mens rea for the “unjustifiably injures” clause of
3. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that
4. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that his conviction of nineteen charges of animal cruelty violated the prohibition against double jeopardy because the phrase “any animal” in
Procedural History
Substitute information charging the defendant with nineteen counts of the crime of cruelty to animals, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield, geographical area number eighteen, and tried to the jury before Matasavage, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Jon L. Schoenhorn, with whom, on the brief, was Ariel R. MacPherson, for the appellant (defendant).
Gregory L. Borrelli, deputy assistant state‘s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David S. Shepack, state‘s attorney, and Devin T. Stilson, supervisory assistant state‘s attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In the fall of 2013, the defendant and Tara Bryson, his business partner, moved their goat cheese manufacturing business, Butterfield Farm (business), to Hautboy Hill Farm (farm) in the town of Cornwall. In May, 2014, the defendant and Bryson relocated a herd of goats to the fаrm from Massachusetts. The defendant and Bryson negotiated an oral lease with Allyn H. Hurlburt III, the owner of the farm, to house the goats in Hurlburt‘s barn. Hurlburt made it clear that the lease covered only the rental of the barn space and was not a boarding lease. In a boarding lease, the lessor agrees to provide care for the animals in addition to the space to house them. The barn the defendant moved the goats into was an open style barn, which means that it did not have fully enclosed walls. As the farm was located on an exposed hill with little topographical protection from the elements, cold winds would gust through the open walls of the barn. Previously, Hurlburt used the barn to house 100 dairy cattle. Hurlburt had remodeled the barn such that it had a ridge vent in the roof. This modification of the barn was suitable for dairy cattle, which produce a great deal of heat. This modification, however, was not suitable for goats, and it permitted rain and snow to enter the barn.
Donald Betti rented the other half of the barn in order to store his prized dairy cattle, and he had the opportunity to observe the goats frequently. During the summer of 2014, the defendant visited the farm frequently. The defendant‘s visits, however, became less and less frequent with time. The defendant and Bryson hired Kim Lamarre and Kyle Brimmer to care for the herd. Betti, through his observations of the herd, became increasingly concerned about the health of the goats. In July, 2014, Betti alerted Chris Stroker, a state milk inspector, to his concerns about the health of the goats. On September 17, 2014, the state Department of Agriculture (department) suspended the business’ permit to produce milk in order to make cheese аnd instructed that produced milk be given to the kid goats. Betti‘s concerns were not alleviated, and in October, 2014, he e-mailed Elizabeth Hall, an agriculture and marketing inspector for the department,
On December 22, 2014, an animal control officer visited the farm and filed a complaint with the department. In response, the department began an investigation into the conditions on the farm and, on December 23, issued a quarantine order due to the morbidity and mortality rates among the herd. At the time of issuing the quarantine order, the department was unsure if the condition of the goats was attributable to disease or poor herd management.
Hall became involved with the investigation of the defendant‘s goats in December, 2014. On December 23, 2014, Hall made her first visit to the farm. She observed an accumulation of manure throughout the “cold, open barn,” and inadequate bedding. There was a small amount of low quality2 hay available for food. Hall described one goat as “depressed. She had her head down. She wasn‘t acting as inquisitive as most troublemaking goats are. She was very dull and lifeless.” In addition, the goats were exhibiting signs of cold stress and shivering on a relatively mild 38 degree day. The feeding rack was not filled with hay. In derogation of common herd management practices, the goats were not separated by age, breed, milking status, or pregnancy status; instead, the goats roamed the barn as one unsorted unit.
On December 26, 2014, Hall returned to the farm to assess if there were any changes with respect to feeding or the conditions generally. She observed a downed3 buck named Grover Cleveland in the center alley of the barn. In the three days since Hall‘s prior visit, Grover Cleveland had moved only a couple of feet by wriggling around on the ground; he was covered in his own urine and his fur had been worn away from paddling like a dog in an attempt to pull himself onto his chest. The hay in the barn remained soiled and wet. The feeding rack was not filled with hay.
On December 26, 2014, Dr. Bruce Sherman, a veterinarian with the department, joined Hall at the defendant‘s farm. Sherman observed multiple downed and emaciated goats. For example, Sherman saw a downed, white saanen4 doe that “had a poor body condition . . . .” This goat was emaciated, as indicated by its prominent vertebral processes and visible ribs. Sherman further observed that, “[t]he doe had been [downed] for quite a period of time . . . . [I]t had been paddling, [which means that it had been] laying on its side moving its legs and in doing so moved away what little hay and bedding that was there. There was a pile of
Sherman further observed that conditions on the farm were inadequate. The goats were not receiving adequate nutrition and sporadically received water. Does did not have enough energy during the last trimester of pregnancy and, as a result, gave birth to underweight kids with low survival rates. Many of the goats were too weak to get up, and the barn did not provide adequate shelter from the weather. The goats were not separated into groups, a necessity for proper herd management. This allowed the remaining vigorous bucks to push out the smaller and weaker goats on the occasions when food was available. The barn also lacked a creep feeder, which is designed for adolescent goats to have a free choice of nutrients and to keep the adults out. Moreover, the herd was riddled with internal parasites and there were carcasses strewn throughout the barn.
On December 28, 2014, Hall observed that conditions in the barn had not changed. The goats were not doing well and were not receiving adequate food or water. Hall noticed that more goats were coughing and exhibiting signs of cold stress. She also discovered more mortalities and that Grover Cleveland had not changed his location since her last visit. Dead goats were piled in a manger near where the hay was stored. The young goats had access to this area and would “play . . . on top of [the carcasses],” exposing them to infectious materials. The feeding rack remained empty. Hall also noticed that there was a pregnant doe that was not receiving proper care. Sound farming practices dictate that expecting does be kept in a sanitized, dry area and that there should be a heat lamp for the newborns. The defendant was not providing these conditions at the farm.
On December 29, 2014, three members of the department—Hall, Sherman, and Wayne Kasacek—had a conference call with the defendant and Bryson. The members of the department implored the defendant to take corrective actions in order to improve the conditions of the goats. Specifically, they recommended that a veterinarian assess the entire herd and provide feeding instructions. The defendant told the department that the goats had a condition known as meningeal worm. Sherman told the defendant that meningeal worm would not account for the morbidity and the mortality rates in the herd. In response, the defendant became combative and stated that he knew that the goats had meningeal worm because he “talked to a lot of farmers and had done research himself . . . .”
On December 29, 2014, after speaking with representatives of the department, the defendant contacted a veterinarian, Dr. Katherine Kane. The defendant requested that Kane euthanize a goat in order to perform a necropsy. On December 30, Kane arrived to euthanize one animal.5 Kane did not intend to remain at the farm for a long period of time, but she did so because the defendant was present and asked her many questions. The defendant informed her that the goats were suffering
On January 7, 2015, Hall returned to the farm. Hall observed that, despite the discussions that had occurred between the defendant and the department concerning the condition of the goats, no changes had been made since her last visit. It was a cold day and the goats were huddled together for warmth in a pen with a fiberglass calf hutch because the barn did not have adequate bedding. By huddling together, the goats’ respiration increased the humidity in this small hutch. The increased humidity caused their hair to become even more matted and made it more difficult for the goats to stay warm. There were heat lamps in the barn, but they were not being used, despite thе department‘s recommendation to do so. There were two abandoned newborn kids that were still wet and in very unsanitary conditions. Another baby goat had been trampled to death.
Hall returned to the farm on January 8, 2015. At this point, two heat lamps had been installed for the entire herd. The heat lamps were woefully inadequate to provide warmth for all the goats, and does were
Hall visited the farm again on January 9, 2015, but found no improvement in the goats’ care. Hall made her final three visits to the farm on January 11, 2015. On this day, Hall arrived just before 7 a.m. and stayed until 9:30 a.m. She saw Betti arrive to care for his cows and told him to call her if anyone came to attend to the goats. Hall returned at 4 p.m. and saw the defendant and Bryson arrive with a bale of hay. Fifteen minutes after arriving, the defendant and Bryson left the farm in the company van without caring for the goats. Hall came back to the farm for a third time that day at 5:45 p.m. to see if anyone had attended to the goats. Hall discovered that nothing had been done to care for the herd that day and became distraught. She began to give the goats hay and water with the help of Betti. The goats that were able to stand approached Hall anxiously as she fed them and were fighting amongst themselves for water. As Hall left the farm at 7:30 p.m., Brimmer arrived.
The department seized the seventy-four surviving goats on January 16, 2015. Dr. Mary Jane Lis, a veterinarian with the department, assessed each goat and assigned each one a body score. The body score is a visual score on a scale of one to five that assesses the health of an individual goat—a goat that receives a score of one is very thin and emaciated, and a score of five would be assigned to an obese goat. The average score of the herd was two and one-half11 and Lis assigned nineteen goats a score of one.12
Two of the goats that received a score of one died within one week of the department seizing the herd. Necropsies were performed on these two goats, a male saanen and a female nubian.13 The causes of death for the male saanen included chronic suppurative bronchopneumonia and pleuritis,14 chronic lymphoplasmacytic tracheitis,15 pulmonary nematodiasis, and emaciation. The female nubian died from interstitial neutrophilic and lymphocytic histiocytic pneumonia, pulmonary nematodiasis, centrilobular hepatocellular atrophy,16 and serous atrophy of fat, which
Lis tested the seventeen surviving seized goats with body scores of one for caprine arthritis encephalitis, caseous lymphadenitis, and Johne‘s disease. Caprine arthritis encephalitis is a preventable virus that impacts the longevity of a goat. It causes arthritis and decreasеs the production of milk. Only one of the seventeen goats tested negative for this disease. Caseous lymphadenitis is bacterial disease that causes boils or abscesses. Fourteen of the seized goats tested positive for this disease. Johne‘s disease is a bacterial disease that renders a goat unable to absorb nutrients. Three of the seventeen goats tested positive for this disease.17
The seventeen confiscated goats that received body scores of one were all extremely emaciated when the department took possession of them. One goat was described as a “walking frame . . . of bones,” and many of the others were so thin that Lis could feel every one of their vertebrae when palpating them and their entire rib cages were visible. Their hooves were overgrown, which made walking difficult and painful. They each suffered from a variety of ailments and conditions, which included abscesses, lice, dermatitis, missing hair, difficulty breathing, and swelling and edema in both ears. Some goats had necrosis in the ear margins as a result of untreated ear infections. One goat, named Sasquatch, had been improperly dehorned.
By May, 2015, the condition of the confiscated goats had improved dramatically under the department‘s care. A weigh-in on May 20, 2015, revealed that the seventeen goats gained an average of 19.2 pounds. They appeared to have a “sassy” demeanor, and their overall appearance had improved. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
I
First, the defendant claims that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of animal сruelty. We disagree.
“The standard of review we apply to a claim of insufficient evidence is well established. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction we apply a [two part] test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [jury] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .
“We note that the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense, [but] each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .
“Moreover, it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct. . . .
“Ordinarily, intent can only be inferred by circumstantial evidence; it may be and usually is inferred from the defendant‘s conduct. . . . Finally, [a]s we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt . . . nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the [jury], would have resulted in an acquittal. . . . On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [jury‘s] verdict of guilty.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Campbell, 328 Conn. 444, 503-505 (2018).
Thus, to obtain a conviction in the present case, the state bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant confined the goats and failed to give them proper care or that the defendant had charge or custody of the goats and failed to provide proper food, drink, or protection from the weather. See
“The process of statutory interpretation involves the determination of the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of the case . . . . When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case . . . . In seeking to determine that meaning . . . [General Statutes] § 1-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.” (Footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Leak, 297 Conn. 524, 532-33 (2010). “Issues of statutory construction raise questions of law, over which we exercise plenary review.” (Internal quotation marks
We begin our plain meaning analysis of the statute by noting that the legislature did not define the terms “charge,” “custody,” or “confinement.” Thus, we turn to the dictionary entries for common definitions of these terms. The term “charge” is defined as “a duty or responsibility laid upon or entrusted to one” or “anything or anybody committed to one‘s care or management.” Random House Webster‘s Unabridged Dictionary (2d Ed. 2001). The term “custody” is defined as “keeping; guardianship; care.” Id. An individual with charge or custody of an animal must give that animal adequate food, water, and shelter from the elements. On the basis of the foregoing definitions, in the context of the statute, the terms “charge” and “custody” must necessarily describe when an individual has a duty to provide care for an animal. Thus, this clause of
The trial court instructed the jury in a manner consistent with our interpretation of
“Under the second claim, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The state must prove that [the defendant], first, had charge or custody of a particular goat at issue, and, second, failed to give that goat proper food, drink, or protection from the weather. . . .
“Charge means to have an obligation or duty or to be entrusted with the care, custody, or management of something. Custody means immediate charge and control exercised by a person or authority. Proper means that which is fit, suitable, adapted, or correct.”
Resolving the defendant‘s sufficiency claim requires us to determine whether the evidence, construed in the
We begin our assessment of the evidence by observing that there was ample evidence to support an inference that the goats did not receive proper care or, alternatively, that they did not receive adequate food, water, and shelter. The defendant does not appear to dispute this obvious fact. When the goats were confiscated, they were starving and riddled with parasites and diseases. The department‘s investigation revealed that conditions in the barn were wholly inadequate to provide them shelter from the elements and were unsanitary. Inside the barn, the goats were not properly sorted. Moreover, the evidence reveals that the goats did not recеive adequate food or water.
There was ample evidence to support a finding that the defendant confined, or had charge or custody of, the goats. Hurlburt testified that the defendant brought the goats to the barn and that the defendant negotiated an oral lease for half the barn. Betti testified that he first met the defendant in the fall of 2013 when the defendant came to the farm to inspect the property in order to move his and Bryson‘s cheese-making business there. Betti testified that during the summer of 2014, after the defendant and Bryson brought the goats to the farm, the defendant arrived frequently to care for the goats, but the frequency of the defendant‘s visits decreased with time. Brimmer testified that the defendant came by occasionally to care for and feed the goats. Mark Ustico, a local part-time farmer, testified that the defendant contacted him to purchase hay because the defendant was “in a pinch.”
There was evidence before the jury of the defendant‘s interactions with the department that supported the finding that the defendant confined, or had charge or custody of, the goats. The department learned through its investigation of the herd that the defendant played an active role in the management of the goats. Lis testified that, during a conference call on December 23, 2014, with members of the department, the defendant “took the lead on telling me what was being done with the management of the goats” and that he “predominated the conversation” about the mortality rates in the herd. Sherman testified that on December 29, 2014, members of the department conducted another conference call with the defendant and Bryson concerning the recommendations made by the department. During the call, Sherman told the defendant that the condition of the herd remained “very poor” and that something needed to be done. The defendant responded by saying that the herd suffered from meningeal worm, and that he knew this because he had spoken with other farmers and had prior experience with this parasite in a different herd in Massachusetts. Kasacek testified that during this phone call the defendant identified himself as the owner of the goats, told the department that the goats suffered from meningeal worm, and became combative when discussing the quarantine. By the end of the call, Kasacek believed that the department had convinced the defendant to do something about the goat‘s health because the defendant stated that he “had to get to work . . . .” Sherman also testified that a third conference call involving the department, the defendant, and Bryson occurred on January 6, 2015. During this conversation, the department provided detailed instructions on how to care for the goats and stressed that the goats’ nutrition was inadequate. Lis testified that Hall‘s observations at the farm were inconsistent
There was yet additional evidence of the defendant‘s interactions with Kane that supported the inference that the defendant was responsible for the herd. Kane testified that it was the defendant who contacted her on December 29, 2014, to request that a necropsy be performed. This was compelling evidence, for it would be reasonable to infer that the defendant would only have the authority to order the euthanization of the animals if he had charge and custody of them. Kane met the defendant at the farm to inspect the goats on December 30, 2014. Kane testified that the defendant opened an account with her business in his name and used his credit card to pay her to euthanize two goats. Kane also recalled that the defendant and Bryson had been giving the goats fenbendazole without a diagnosis because the defendant believed the herd suffered from meningeal worm. On January 8, 2015, Kane told the defendant that the preliminary diagnosis from the necropsy “seemed to be emaciation . . . .” In addition to providing the defendant with the preliminary results, Kane and the defendant had an extensive conversation about what was necessary to feed the herd and keep the kids warm. Kane also testified that the defendant called her when the state confiscated the herd and said that the “state was seizing his animals . . . .” (Emphasis added.) There was no evidence that the defendant ever advised the department to discuss the care of the goats with someone other than himself.
In arguing that the evidence did not support a finding of confinement, or charge or custody, the defendant asserts that ownership is not the equivalent of confinement. This argument is not persuasive. Although ownership does not necessarily support a finding of confinement when the owner has hired someone else to care for an animal; State v. Yorczyk, 167 Conn. 434, 438-39 (1974); it can still be probative evidence that the defendant bore the responsibility of caring for the goats and authorizing their confinement. The defendant told members of the department that he was the owner of the goats and became involved in the department‘s investigation of the herd. During the investigation, the defendant gave the department the impression that he was there to care for “his” goats and that he would follow their instructions to improve herd management. Moreover, there was evidence that the defendant was not an absentee owner who left the goats in the hands of others. Cf. Id. Instead, the evidence reflects that the defendant was both responsible for and in charge of the management of the goats. Brimmer, the hired help, testified about how the defendant sporadically came to the farm to tend to the goats and delivered hay to the farm.
The defendant asserts that it was Bryson alone who confined the goats.20
Third, there was evidence to support the inference that the defendant acted independently at times to represent himself as the person who was responsible for caring for the goats. The defendant communicated with members of the department without Bryson. The defendant also arranged for Kane to perform a necropsy, paid for her services, and contacted her about the results of the necropsies. He was also the only person who asked the department about how to dispose of the dead goats that were piled inside the barn.
We conclude our analysis by noting that we, as a reviewing court, must examine the evidence in its totality, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury‘s finding of guilt, to determine whether the jury reasonably could have determined that the state satisfied its burden of proof. The state, by presenting testimony of department members, Betti, Hurlburt, and Kane, introduced evidence to support the inference that the defendant held himself out as the owner and caretaker of the goats. Department members’ descriptions of conditions in the barn and of the poor health of the goats supported the inference that the goats did nоt receive proper care. Thus, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant, having confined, or having charge or custody of, the goats, failed to give the goats proper care or food, water, and shelter.
II
Second, the defendant claims that the court should have instructed the jury on criminal negligence.
Our analysis begins with the standard of review. “When reviewing the challenged jury instruction . . . we must adhere to the well settled rule that a charge to the jury is to be considered in its entirety, read as a whole, and judged by its total effect rather than by its individual component parts. . . . [T]he test of a court‘s charge is not whether it is as accurate upon legal principles as the opinions of a court of last resort but whether it fairly presents the case to the jury in such a way that injustice is not done to either party under the established rules of law. . . . As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.
“It is . . . constitutionally axiomatic that the jury be instructed on the essential elements of a crime charged. . . . The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment protects an accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. . . . Consequently, the failure to instruct a jury on an element of a crime deprives a defendant of the right to have
The issue of the requisite mens rea applicable to the relevant portion of
“In determining [whether a crime] requires proof of a general intent [or] of a specific intent, the language chosen by the legislature in enacting a particular statute is significant. When the elements of a crime consist of a description of a particular act and a mental element not specific in nature, the only issue is whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. If he did so intend, he has the requisite general intent for culpability. When the elements of a crime include a defendant‘s intent to achieve some result additional to the act, the additional language distinguishes the crime from those of general intent and makes it one requiring a specific intent.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Roy, 173 Conn. 35, 45 (1977).
The following procedural history is relevant to this claim. The defendant preserved this claim by filing a request to charge on March 11, 2016. In this request to charge, the defendant submitted the following jury instruction on criminal negligence: “A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” The state filed an objection, arguing that, the mens rea required for a conviction under
With respect to intent, the court instructed the jury in relevant part as follows: “Now, general intent is the intent to
“Now, what a person‘s intention was is usually a matter to be determined by inference. No person is able to testify that they looked in another‘s mind and saw therein certain knowledge or a certain purpose or intention to do harm to another. Because direct evidence of the defendant‘s state of mind is rarely available, intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence. The only way a jury can ordinarily determine what a person‘s conduct was at any given time is by determining what that person‘s conduct was and what the circumstances were surrounding that conduct and from that infer what their intention was.
“To draw such an inference is a proper function of a jury, provided, of course, that the inference drawn complies with the standards for inferences as explained in connection with my instruction on circumstantial evidence. The inference is not a necessary one. You‘re not required to infer a particular intent from the defendant‘s conduct or statements, but it is an inference that you may draw if you find it reasonable and logical. I again remind you that the burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is on the state.”
Recently, our Supreme Court addressed whether general intent or criminal negligence is the appropriate mens rea for the “unjustifiably injures” clause21 of
“This plainly indicates that, in
“The defendant argues that we should read a specific intent requirement into the prohibition in
“[T]he plain and unambiguous language of the clause in
In the present case, the relevant language of
III
Third, the defendant claims that
The defendant correctly acknowledges that he did not preserve this claim at trial. The defendant argues, however, that the claim is reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 (1989). Under Golding, “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the viоlation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness
The defendant‘s claim meets the first two prongs of Golding and is, therefore, subject to review. First, the record is adequate to review because it reflects both that the defendant was convicted under
We begin by setting forth the relevant legal principles. “The determination of whether a statutory provision is unconstitutionally vague is a question of law over which we exercise de novo review.” State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753, 758-59 (2010). “The void for vagueness doctrine is a procedural due process concept that originally was derived from the guarantees of due process contained in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. . . . The constitutional injunction that is commonly referred to as the void for vagueness doctrine embodies two central precepts: the right to fair warning of the effect of a governing statute or regulation and the guarantee against standardless law enforcement. . . .
“If the meaning of a statute can be fairly ascertainеd a statute will not be void for vagueness since [m]any statutes will have some inherent vagueness, for [i]n most English words and phrases there lurk uncertainties. . . . For statutes that do not implicate the especially sensitive concerns embodied in the first amendment, we determine the constitutionality of a statute under attack for vagueness by considering its applicability to the particular facts at issue. . . .
“In challenging the constitutionality of a statute, the defendant bears a heavy burden. To prevail on his vagueness claim, [t]he defendant must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute, as applied to him, deprived him of adequate notice of what conduct the statute proscribed or that he fell victim to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. . . . The proper test for determining [whether] a statute is vague as applied is whether a reasonable person would have anticipated that the statute would apply to his or her particular conduct. . . . The test is objectively applied to the actor‘s conduct and judged by a reasonable person‘s reading of the statute . . . .
“If the language of a statute fails to provide definite notice of prohibited conduct, fair warning can be provided by prior judicial opinions involving the statute . . . or by an examination of whether a person of ordinary intelligence would reasonably know what acts are permitted or prohibited by the use of his common sense and ordinary understanding.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pettigrew, 124 Conn. App. 9, 24-25 (2010).
As stated previously,
The defendant asserts that the ambiguity in the terms “charge” and “custody” did not provide notice that he bore the responsibility of caring for the goats and, “therefore, what ‘proper care’ was required of him.”26 (Emphasis in original.) We agree with the defendant that these terms may be susceptible to some degree of interpretation. See State v. Josephs, supra, 328 Conn. 32 (“unjustifiably injures” in
Thus, we now turn to whether these terms “charge” and “custody,” as used in
The state argues that
The defendant‘s vagueness challenge is further undermined by the evidence that hе had notice that his conduct violated the law. A “defendant‘s special knowledge may undermine his . . . vagueness challenge . . . .” State v. Jason B., 248 Conn. 543, 567 (1999). In the present case, representatives from the department informed the defendant prior to the time of his arrest that his treatment of the goats violated the animal cruelty statute. Sherman advised the defendant that his conduct was in violation of the animal cruelty statute, and the defendant responded by stating that “he was familiar with the law . . . .” Kane informed the defendant that the goats’ nutrition needed to be improved. Members of the department told the defendant to provide heat lamps and shelter from the wind. The record reflects, however, that the defendant did not act on this instruction. Instead, the defendant allowed the condition of the goats to continue to deteriorate.
IV
Last, the defendant claims that his conviction of nineteen charges of animal cruelty violated the prohibition against double jeopardy under the state and federal constitutions because the term “any animal” in
The defendant correctly acknowledges before this court that he failed to present this claim, in any form, before the trial court. The defendant argues, however, that the claim is reviewable under State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 233. See part III of this opinion. Insofar as the defendant‘s claim is based on a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy afforded under the state and federal constitutions, the claim is reviewable under Golding because the record is adequate for review and the claim is of constitutional magnitude. See, e.g., State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 704-705 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242, 261 (2013); State v. Kurzatkowski, 119 Conn. App. 556, 568 (2010). The defendant claims that he was convicted and sentenced for nineteеn counts for one offense in a single trial. “A defendant may obtain review of a double jeopardy claim, even if it is unpreserved, if he has received [multiple] punishments for [multiple] crimes, which he claims were one crime, arising from the same transaction and prosecuted at one trial . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Urbanowski, 163 Conn. App. 377, 386-87 (2016), aff‘d, 327 Conn. 169 (2017).
The United States Supreme Court has “recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause consists of several protections: It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. . . . These protections stem from the underlying premise that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense. . . . The Clause opеrates as a bar against repeated attempts to convict, with consequent subjection of the defendant to embarrassment, expense, anxiety, and insecurity, and the possibility that he may be found guilty even though innocent.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, 229-30 (1994).
“The proper double jeopardy inquiry when a defendant is convicted of multiple violations of the same statutory provision is whether the legislature intended to punish the individual acts separately or to punish only the course of action which they constitute.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Rawls, 198 Conn. 111, 121 (1985). “The issue, though essentially constitutional, becomes one of statutory construction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Knight, 56 Conn. App. 845, 855 (2000). Therefore, the question before us becomes whether the legislature in enacting
Whether
The defendant argues that
In the present case, although the defendant‘s conduct in mistreating the animals occurred over the same period of time and consisted of the same general acts, each of the charged offenses pertained to a different, identifiable goat. The state filed one count for each of the nineteen goats that received a body score of one when the department evaluated the herd after it was removed from the defendant‘s custody. The record supports the proposition that each goat needed to be fed and watered separately. Each goat was starving; some were so severely deprived of nutrients that they could not move and were left to wallow in their own feces. The defendant failed to provide each goat with veterinary care for their various injuries and wounds. The record reveals that each goat suffered different, individualized ailments and contains photographs depicting each goat‘s suffering. The defendant‘s separate abuse and maltreatment of each goat supports the nineteen separate counts filed by the prosecutor. Simply put, the defendant‘s cruelty to each goat constituted a separate crime.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that the statute is ambiguous, we would still reach the conclusion that the
Comparing
Moreоver, “[t]he manifest purpose of [§ 53-247 (a)] is to ensure that no impounded or confined animal . . . is exposed by its caretaker to conditions harmful to its health or well-being.” State v. Acker, 160 Conn. App. 734, 746 (2015). The underlying intent of the statute supports the conclusion that it effectuates a per animal unit of prosecution. Given that the core purpose of the statute is to protect animals, it is consistent with the intent of the statute to conclude that the cruel treatment of each individual animal constitutes a separate violation.
Additionally, shifting views on the purpose for animal cruelty statutes during the nineteenth century, when the phrase “any animal” was codified in an early form of the animal cruelty statute, supports interpreting
The trend associated with animal cruelty statutes—from no liability at common law to criminalizing animal cruelty to protect sentient animals in the interest of morality—supports concluding that
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
KELLER, J.
JUDGE OF THE APPELLATE COURT