ILNews

Judges uphold felony conviction for kicking cat

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed an Allen County man’s conviction of Class D felony torturing or mutilating a vertebrate animal, finding sufficient evidence that the man knowingly or intentionally mutilated a cat that somehow got into his house.

Larry Knox tried to get the cat out by opening the front door and kicking it outside. He kicked the cat so hard that it knocked out the cat’s front tooth, causing it to go flying out of its mouth. The cat then ran into the bedroom, where he chased it and kicked it a couple more times. Then Knox called animal control.

Knox told the animal control officer that he didn’t like cats and that he was not threatened by the cat. He even joked how far the tooth had flown from the cat. A veterinarian who examined the cat said it would take a lot of force to knock out the tooth and the cat must have been sitting or crouched down when the incident occurred. Based on the cat’s behavior, the veterinarian and animal control officer concluded she was not feral.

Knox argued that he kicked the cat only after it “came straight at me,” but he was found guilty and sentenced to one year in the Department of Correction.

In Larry D. Knox v. State of Indiana, 02A03-1312-CR-491, the Court of Appeals noted that the mens rea element of I.C. 35-46-3-12(c), under which Knox was found guilty, has not been addressed by an Indiana appellate court yet. But it’s been well established that a person engages in conduct intentionally if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so. And engaging in conduct “knowingly” occurs when the person is aware of a high probability that he is engaging in the conduct.

The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that Knox knowingly or intentionally mutilated the cat. The judges declined to reweigh the evidence, noting they are in no position to challenge the fact-finder’s assessment of Knox’s credibility on appeal.  
 

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