ILNews

Evidence supports animal fighting convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Shelby County man who claimed his devotion to his religious beliefs required him to breed, raise and fight gamefowl had his convictions relating to animal fighting upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday.

In Edward W. Clemons v. State of Indiana, 73A01-1207-CR-327, Edward Clemons was charged with Class D felonies possession of an animal for purposes of an animal fighting contest and promoting an animal fighting contest, and Class B misdemeanor possession of animal fighting paraphernalia. The charges stem from an investigation initiated by John Goodwin, director of animal cruelty policy at the Humane Society of the United States, who read an article in a cockfighting trade journal about Clemons.

Police found numerous roosters on Clemons’ property that were dubbed – meaning their fleshy protuberances on the throat and head were missing and had shortened or removed spurs on their legs. Animals are dubbed to be used in cockfighting. Police also found a long knife used in Filipino cockfighting as an attachment to the rooster’s leg, instruction manuals on training battle cocks and medicines for the animals.

Clemons argued that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support his convictions, which resulted in an aggregate sentence of 15 months of probation. But the appellate judges found the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Clemons knowingly or intentionally purchased or possessed an animal for the purpose of an animal fighting contest and possessed the animal fighting paraphernalia – the knife – with the intent to commit an animal fighting contest violation.

There was also sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clemons promoted an animal fighting contest.

“In sum, Clemons has invited us to reweigh the evidence but we decline to do so,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote.


 

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. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT