Lock v. Falkenstine case brief summary

Lock v. Falkenstine – Cockfighting
 

1.  FACTS: Ct was unsure whether cockfighting should be protected by the animal cruelty statute.

2.  ISSUE: Is a gamecock considered an animal statutorily?

a.  In past had been distinction between domestic animals and domestic fowl

b. Here language is not certain

3.  HOLDING: Roosters are not animals as defined by the statute, and cockfighting is not deemed illegal

a.  Men of ordinary intelligence can’t be expected to presume cocks = animals for purposes of fighting prohibition

b. Legislature can enact specific legislation in order to remove all doubt

4.  RULE: If we CAN define an animal and have not done so, then that is by choice, there is a reason behind it.