Cotton v. State case brief
CASE SYNOPSIS: Following a bench trial, the Elbert County State Court (Georgia) convicted defendant of cruelty to animals, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-4(b), and also convicted defendant and his wife of allowing livestock to roam at large, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 4-3-3. Defendant and his wife appealed.
FACTS: Defendant was charged with cruelty to animals and allowing livestock to roam at large after a sheriff's deputy and a livestock inspector found cows confined without water or feed in a small pen on property defendant and his wife owned. Defendant's wife was also charged with allowing livestock to roam at large. The case was tried in a bench trial, and the trial court found defendant and his wife guilty of all charges. The appellate court held that (1) the State's evidence showed that defendant committed an act or omission that caused unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to an animal, and it was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for violating O.C.G.A. § 16-12-4(b) even though the State did not prove willful neglect; but (2) O.C.G.A. § 4-3-3 was not a penal statute, and the trial court erred by convicting defendant and his wife of violating that statute and imposing punishment for that violation.
CONCLUSION: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting defendant of cruelty to animals, but it reversed the trial court's judgment convicting defendant and his wife of allowing livestock to roam at large and remanded the case to the trial court with directions that it dismiss those charges.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
589 S.E.2d 610
CASE SYNOPSIS: Following a bench trial, the Elbert County State Court (Georgia) convicted defendant of cruelty to animals, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-4(b), and also convicted defendant and his wife of allowing livestock to roam at large, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 4-3-3. Defendant and his wife appealed.
FACTS: Defendant was charged with cruelty to animals and allowing livestock to roam at large after a sheriff's deputy and a livestock inspector found cows confined without water or feed in a small pen on property defendant and his wife owned. Defendant's wife was also charged with allowing livestock to roam at large. The case was tried in a bench trial, and the trial court found defendant and his wife guilty of all charges. The appellate court held that (1) the State's evidence showed that defendant committed an act or omission that caused unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to an animal, and it was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for violating O.C.G.A. § 16-12-4(b) even though the State did not prove willful neglect; but (2) O.C.G.A. § 4-3-3 was not a penal statute, and the trial court erred by convicting defendant and his wife of violating that statute and imposing punishment for that violation.
CONCLUSION: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting defendant of cruelty to animals, but it reversed the trial court's judgment convicting defendant and his wife of allowing livestock to roam at large and remanded the case to the trial court with directions that it dismiss those charges.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment