ILNews

COA: Teen who shot cows did not mutilate or torture them

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday reversed a teenager’s adjudications for cruelty to an animal after finding the evidence was not sufficient to prove he mutilated or tortured either cow he shot.

Seventeen-year-old A.J.R. and his 14-year-old friend C.C. were in LaPorte County coyote hunting with C.C.’s semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. When they came upon a pasture of cattle, A.J.R. took C.C.’s rifle, leaned out of the driver’s side window of his car, and fired two shots into the herd of cattle. C.C. fired at cattle at another pasture.

The cattle’s owner discovered two of his cows lying on the ground. One had a wound in its head, the other had no visible wound but was moaning and unresponsive. Both died within 30 minutes of the shooting.

Police interviewed the teens, during which A.J.R. admitting to driving the car when the cows were shot after C.C. implicated A.J.R. in the shootings. A.J.R. was adjudicated as a delinquent for committing what would be two counts of cruelty to an animal, two counts of criminal mischief, and aiding, inducing or causing criminal mischief, if committed by an adult.

In A.J.R. v. State of Indiana, 46A03-1306-JV-243, the appellate judges found there was sufficient evidence that A.J.R. shot and killed two of the cattle, including testimony of sheriff’s deputy Troy Ryan, who investigated the area where the two shootings occurred. Thus, they affirmed his adjudications for criminal mischief.

But the judges reversed the adjudications for cruelty to animals because there’s no evidence the teen intended to torture or mutilate the cows. There’s no evidence that A.J.R. shot either of the cows with the intent of increasing or prolonging the animals’ pain, as is required for conviction of this crime by the statute. Nor is there evidence that he targeted either cow in a way that would result in serious disfigurement, protracted impairment of a body part or organ, or a fracture, Judge Margret Robb wrote, which again is required by statute.

The judges also affirmed the admission of Ryan’s skilled witness testimony, ruling it did not violate A.J.R.’s right to a fair fact-finding hearing.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT