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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues