ILNews

Appeals court upholds woman’s sentence for treatment of cats

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Fort Wayne woman who kept more than 100 cats between two properties in deplorable conditions had her sentence for multiple counts of criminal mischief and animal cruelty upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The judges declined to revise her sentence because it was appropriate given her character and the nature of the offense.

Constance Anderson rented a property on Elmer Street in Fort Wayne that housed as many as 85 cats. She did not live there, but would visit the property occasionally to dump a bag of food on the ground. The home was covered in urine and feces and the animals even cannibalized their young. The air in the home tested in excess of four times the amount of ammonia typically found in normal air quality.

Animal control officers also found more than 20 live cats and 20 dead cats at the home where Anderson lived on St. Mary’s Avenue. All but five of the 108 live cats discovered between the two homes had to be euthanized. The conditions of the home led to the Elmer Street home becoming slated for demolition and required $13,000 of renovations to the St. Mary’s Avenue home.

Anderson pleaded guilty to two counts of Class D felony criminal mischief and five counts of Class A misdemeanor animal cruelty without a plea agreement. She received five one-year sentences on the misdemeanors to be served concurrently with three-year sentences on the felony charges.

In Constance Anderson v. State of Indiana, 02A03-1211-CR-495, Anderson argued the state should have considered her education and employment history, lack of criminal history, cooperation with investigators, her remorse and her mental state as mitigators. The appeals court pointed out the record shows the Allen County court considered each factor, but found none were significant. Her remorse was attributable to being caught rather than regret for her conduct.

Regarding her sentence, the judges noted her conduct “clearly exceeds the elements necessary under the charged offenses.” She caused significant damage to both homes and she knew the state of the animals because she left nearly 85 cats in the one house without adequate food and water and also didn’t properly care for the cats in her residence.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT