ILNews

Raccoon hunter cleared of conviction for fetching wayward dog

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A raccoon hunter’s misdemeanor conviction was reversed Tuesday when appellate judges determined he wasn’t hunting or chasing wildlife when he retrieved his wandering dog from property where he didn’t have permission to hunt.

Jeremy Schath was convicted of Class C misdemeanor chasing wildlife on private property without the consent of the owner after the state amended an initial charge of hunting without permission during a bench trial before Decatur Superior Judge Matthew D. Bailey. The case is Jeremy Schath v. State of Indiana, 16A05-1308-CR-433.

Schath was raccoon hunting in November 2012 with the permission of the property owner when his dog wandered onto private property where Schath didn’t have permission to hunt. He put his gun down and retrieved the dog, which had cornered a raccoon in a drainage pipe.

“While we do not reweigh the credibility of witnesses or the evidence on appeal, we note that in the instant matter, no such ‘reweighing’ is necessary because all of the evidence in the record indicates that Schath entered the Coffee Tree Farms Property for the sole purpose of retrieving his dog, not for the purpose of chasing a raccoon,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the panel.

“As such, we conclude that the evidence presented before the trial court was insufficient to sustain Schath’s conviction for Class C misdemeanor chasing wildlife on private property without the consent of the landowner. Accordingly, we reverse Schath’s conviction.”

 
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT