State v. KylesState v. Kyles
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND VACATED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 3, 2023
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mason P. McCarthy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
The Goldberg Law Firm, L.L.C., and Adam Parker, for appellant.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Alonzo Kyles (“Kyles”), appeals his conviction for cruelty to animals, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of
{¶ 2} On October 3, 2021, Cleveland police officers responded to an incident at an apartment building on Cliffview Road. (Tr. 12 and 14.) Upon arrival, the officers accessed the building through the bottom floor stairway leading into the basement, where they smelled a powerful odor of bleach. (Tr. 13.) The officers discovered a large amount of bleach on the basement floor. (Tr. 16.)
{¶ 3} While investigating the scene, officers heard distressed meowing from a cat that was found lying still, completely soaked in the bleach. (Tr. 14 and 20.) The officers promptly retrieved the cat, noticing its red and swollen paws. (Tr. 23-25.) The cat had no collar or any identifiable markings and remained unclaimed by anyone present (Tr. 34.) One officer testified that he believed that the cat had been declawed on its front paws since it had only its back claws extended. (Tr. 33 and 37.) The officers questioned Kyles, who was present at the scene. Kyles explained to the officers that he was afraid of cats and that he poured water and bleach on the floor to make the cat leave the building. (Tr. 14 and 25.)
{¶ 4} The cat was subsequently taken to West Park Animal Hospital for treatment under the care of Dr. Jennifer Kinney. (Tr. 25 and 42.) Dr. Kinney instantly noted the strong bleach odor from the cat and was uncertain whether the cat was a stray. The cat was identified as a domestic long-hair breed and around eight months old, was slightly underweight, and showed signs of stress indicated by its heart rate. (Tr. 48-49 and 50.) The cat was dirty and unfriendly, but not aggressive. (Tr. 44 and 45.) Dr. Kinney was surprised that the cat tolerated a bath
{¶ 5} On April 22, 2022, Kyles was indicted on a single count of animal cruelty, a fifth-degree felony under
{¶ 6} Kyles raises two assignments of error on appeal.
Defendant’s conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence.
Assignment of Error No. 2
Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Standard of Review
{¶ 7} In a criminal case, the state bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence for each element of an offense in order to sustain a conviction of the offense. Strongsville v. Eskander, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92448, 2009-Ohio-5370, ¶ 10. The standard of review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 274, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). If the state fails to produce sufficient evidence to support each element of the offense charged, the defendant must be acquitted. Crim.R. 29.
{¶ 8} While the test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the prosecution has met its burden of production at trial, a manifest weight challenge questions whether the prosecution has presented evidence that has the effect of persuasion. State v. Bowden, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92266, 2009-Ohio-3598; State v. O’Malley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109454, 2021-Ohio-2038, ¶ 20.
{¶ 9} Ohio’s animal cruelty statute has been in existence for over 125 years and concerns cruelty to all animals.
No person shall (1) [t]orture an animal, deprive one of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill, or impound or confine an animal without supplying it during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good wholesome food and water * * *.
Id.
{¶ 10} Until the introduction of House Bill 108, a violation of
{¶ 11} As opposed to being charged with a misdemeanor cruelty to animals violation, which does not require the cat to be a companion animal, Kyles was charged and convicted of violation of
{¶ 12} Kyles argues that the state offered no evidence that the cat was a companion animal within the meaning of
Companion Animal
{¶ 13} The crucial question here is whether the state met the requirement that the cat was kept as mandated in the statutory definition of a companion animal. A conviction under this subsection requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyles knowingly caused serious physical harm to a companion animal.
{¶ 14} A reviewing court is not permitted to interpret a statute when language is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning because an unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted. Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398, 2016-Ohio-8434, 75 N.E.3d 203, ¶ 8. However, when a statutory provision is capable of having more than one meaning the court must apply the rules of statutory interpretation in
{¶ 15} Kyles argues that the state must present evidence that a cat or dog is kept somewhere in order for it to be a companion animal. The Ohio General Assembly chose explicit wording in defining a companion-animal: “animal as any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept, including a pet store as defined in section
{¶ 16} State v. Hartman, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26250, 2012-Ohio-4694, is instructive in this case. In Hartman, appellant was found guilty of cruelty to a companion animal. The animals at issue included 25 birds of varying species. Hartman argued that the state offered insufficient evidence that the birds were
{¶ 17} While ownership is not a required element for an animal to be considered a companion animal under
{¶ 18} In the present case, the state failed to offer sufficient evidence that the cat was kept. We find the state’s argument that the cat was “kept” in the building lacks merit. The state failed to produce evidence that resulted from the care or maintenance of the cat. Its mere presence in the building is insufficient to prove that the cat was kept. Likewise, testimony that the cat may have been partially
{¶ 19} The state’s argument that there is no affirmative evidence that the cat is feral wrongfully shifts the burden of proof to Kyles. It is not Kyles’ burden to prove that the cat is feral. The burden to prove that the cat is a companion animal beyond a reasonable doubt is the state’s duty alone. “The state bears the burden to prove each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Eskander, 2009-Ohio-5370 at ¶ 13. Upon a complete review of the record, this court concludes that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that the cat was provided care. Therefore, the cat was not kept, and the state did not prove the necessary element that the cat was a “companion animal.” In choosing to charge Kyles with a higher-level cruelty to animals offense, the state assumed the burden to prove the additional element that the cat was a companion animal. After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this court cannot find that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential element of the cat being a companion animal beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial court erred when it denied Kyles’ motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29. Kyles’ first assignment of error is sustained. The first assignment of error is dispositive; therefore, the remaining assignment of error is moot.
{¶ 20} Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the conviction and sentencing judgment of the trial court is vacated.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., CONCURS WITH MAJORITY OPINION AND SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION;
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS (WITH SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION)
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURRING:
{¶ 21} Under an Orwellian backdrop with thoughts that “four legs good, two legs bad,” I must concur with the majority. George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 3 (1945).
{¶ 22} I am compelled to concur because as the majority points out,
{¶ 23} I am not convinced this was a feral cat by the behavior exhibited upon treatment, yet the legislature made the decision to require a cat to be a companion animal for the felony-level conviction to apply. As the majority notes, the officer’s
{¶ 24} There is a misdemeanor offense for cruelty to animals under