Woman fails to prove animal fighting statute is unconstitutionally vague

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County woman failed to carry her “heavy burden” of proving that Indiana Code 35-46-3-10, which governs dog fights, is unconstitutionally vague, the Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

Alice Lee appealed her Class A misdemeanor conviction of attendance at an animal fighting contest. Police received a tip from a confidential informant about a dog fight occurring at an Indianapolis residence. Lee was in the garage where the fight was occurring, but told police she was just there to pick up her pit bull, which was in her car in the driveway.

She contended in Alice Lee v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1112-CR-1090, the word “attends” in I.C. 35-46-3-10, is so vague as to make the statute unconstitutional. The statute says “a person who knowingly or intentionally attends a fighting contest involving animals commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor.” An “animal fighting contest” is a conflict between two or more animals, doesn’t include a conflict that is accidental or unorganized, and “animal” does not include human being.

Lee argued that the statute could lead to someone being arrested if they watched a dog fight on the Internet, a simulation of a fight for a movie, watched a friend feed a mouse to a pet snake, or attended a circus and watched a man box with a kangaroo or wrestle a bear.

The statute makes clear that the scenarios Lee proposed would not fall under the statute, Judge James Kirsch wrote. He did note that the court “reserve(d) for another day the question of whether a person who pays to watch an animal fight live on the Internet can be said to be attending an animal fighting contest.”



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. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.