ILNews

COA addresses evidence needed for animal fighting conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For only the second time, the Indiana Court of Appeals has addressed the issue of evidence used to obtain a conviction under I.C. 35-46-3-8, which outlaws buying or owning an animal for an animal fighting contest.

In Rahsaan A. Johnson v. State of Indiana, 18A02-1304-CR-343, Rahsaan Johnson appealed convictions of 14 counts of Class D felony possession of animals for fighting contests.  Muncie Animal Shelter officials went to an abandoned trailer on reports of dogs barking from inside. The shelter’s superintendent called police after observing animals chained up in deplorable conditions. After obtaining a warrant, police discovered a total of 25 animals on the property, often stacked in dog cages crammed inside the mobile home. The animals had injuries consistent with dog fighting, and officers found paraphernalia often used in dog fighting training, such as weighted collars, medicine and treadmills.

Of the 25 dogs, 13 were adopted out and 12 were euthanized for either medical or temperament reasons.

Johnson faced 26 charges as a result of the search, but was convicted of the 14 Class D felonies and seven Class A misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty. He received an aggregate sentence of four years in the Department of Correction.

He challenged the evidence used to convict him and argued his convictions violated double jeopardy.

The judges noted caselaw is scant in interpreting I.C. 35-46-3-8, so they relied on Clemons v. State, 987 N.E.2d 92, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), the only appellate decision to date concerning the sufficiency of evidence used to convict someone under this statute. Clemons was convicted of possessing “battle cocks” for fighting purposes.

“Contrary to Johnson’s argument that the dogs’ fighting history cannot be indicative of their future purpose, the Clemons court found the evidence that the roosters had been used to fight in the past, combined with the fighting paraphernalia, was sufficient to uphold Clemons’ conviction. We find the same rationale applies in Johnson’s case,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote.

Johnson claimed that he was housing the animals and training them to enter weight-pulling competitions, which are legal. He also argued some of the animals were kept solely for breeding purposes or companionship.

“We do not dispute Johnson’s assertion that ‘millions of Hoosiers own animals, and the vast majority of them would never dream of using them in an animal fighting contest,’” Judge Patricia Riley wrote. “It is clear from the evidence, however, that Johnson is not included among this majority of Hoosiers. Accordingly, we find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that Johnson possessed these fourteen pit bulls for the purpose of animal fighting. Fortunately for Johnson, the Indiana Department of Correction will not subject him to the inhumane conditions that he forced upon those twenty-five dogs.”

The judges also found his convictions do not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Indiana Constitution.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT