Woman’s conviction of beating dog is reversed
By DEN MCLAUGHLIN dmclaughlin@tnonline.com
A Carbon County woman, convicted for her part in the beating death of
her dog and sentenced to prison, won her appeal of the conviction in
an opinion handed down by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Wendy Colleen Kneller, 34, of 230 White St., rear, Weissport, was
convicted by a county jury of criminal conspiracy to commit cruelty
to animals on Sept. 15, 2007. Judge David W. Addy later sentenced her
to serve six to 12 months in prison.
Convicted with her was Randy Miller, 25, who at the time resided with
her. He was found guilty of cruelty to animals at the same trial as
Kneller and later sentenced by Addy to serve seven to 24 months in
prison.
Both jail terms were stayed when the defendants indicated to the
court they would appeal the jury convictions to a state court.
The Superior Court admitted that the statutory language used in the
state law applied in the case “is not only unclear on its face but
can only be characterized as confusing.” However, the court
ruled, “because we find that the various sections of the Dog Law,
when read together in a reasonsalbe manner, permit a dog owner to
destroy a dog by use of a firearm, we reverse Kneller’s conviction.”
State police charged that Kneller gave Miller a .40-caliber pistol
and told him to shoot her dog because it had bitten her child. The
incident occurred on March 24, 2006. Witnesses told troopers that
Miller first beat the dog with a shovel and then shot it.
In her appeal, defense Atty. Paul Levy argued argued that the trial
court misconstrued the dog law, thus, “eliminating the relevant
defense that an owner may destroy his dog by shooting it.”
District Attorney Gary F. Dobias argued that the statute Kneller
relies on is only applicable when the pet is injured or unfit for a
useful purpose, and that was not the case in the instance matter.
The state court said the issue becomes whether it is permissble for a
dog owner to dispose of his or her dog that is not injured or unfit
for use by means of a firearm. The court wrote, “After a careful
reading of the statute, we find that it is permissible.”
The court first notes, “it cannot be said that the statute is clear
that a dog owner cannot kill a dog by means of a firearm.” The court
continued that the standard for interpreting a criminal statute is
that “all provisions of a statute of the classes is ‘penal
provisions’.”
The court states that the statute cited provides that it is a
misdemeanor of the first degree if one “willfully and
maliciously ‘kills, maims, mutilates, tortures or disfigures any dog
or cat whether belonging to himself or otherwise.”
But the court quotes a subsection of the law which states, “The
killing of a dog or cat by the owner of that animal is not malicious
if it is accomplished in accordance with the act, referred to as the
Animal Destruction Method Authorization Law.”
The court said, “the law provides that one required method of
destruction is by the administration of an overdose of a barbiturate
and subsection (b) provides that ‘nothing in this act shall prevent a
person or humane society organization from destroying a pet animal by
means of firearms.”
The court writes, “Therefore, with the various statutes read
together, a plain reading of section 323.2(b) leads to the conclusion
that in general one cannot kill an animal, but the owner of a dog or
cat can destroy that dog or cat by means of an overdose of
barbiturates or ‘by means of firearms.’”
The state court adds that “The Commonwealth contends it is illogical
to allow someone to kill their dog by means of barbiturates or a
firearm but prohibit them from beating or abusing the dog. This
argument also fails. While one is allowed to humanely kill a pet, in
this case because the pet bit a child, this does not mean one should
be allowed to torture the animal.”
But the court concludes, “Under all the circumstances, we hold that
the legislature does not prohibit a dog or cat owner from destroying
that animal by either the use of barbiturates or firearms. Therefore,
Kneller’s conviction cannot stand.”
Dobias has a right to ask the state Supreme Court to review the
Superior’s court decision, and further seek to have that court
reinstate the conviction.
login or register to post comments | email this page | printer
friendly version
This is a crock… by WVmountaingirl
So what about the ‘beating with a shovel’? by PennyPA
Today’s Most Viewed:
Cars collide on Kattner’s Mountain
Twelve enter guilty pleas in Carbon County court
Fifteen enter guilty pleas
Eight enter guilty pleas in Carbon Co. court
A trilogy completed
Similar entries
Two get prison time for killing dog; but appeals are planned
2 found guilty of cruelty
Woman sentenced in case in which she had daughter steal
OPINION, TUESDAY
Man beaten in Carbon County over bad checks has conviction tossed
Copyright 2008 Times News Inc.
