Commonwealth v. Grimes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3758, 982 A.2d 559, 2009 Pa. Super. 193 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The common law defense of justification, or "choice of evils," codified under 18 Pa.C.S. § 503, applies only to conduct undertaken to avoid harm to a human being and does not extend to actions taken to prevent harm to an animal, which is legally considered personal property.


Facts:

  • Tammy Sneath Grimes, founder of the non-profit Dogs Deserve Better, Inc., received calls about a dog chained outside the home of Steve and Lori Arnold that appeared to need medical attention.
  • Grimes and an employee went to the Arnolds' home, observed the dog lying on the ground, and photographed its condition.
  • After no one answered the door, Grimes and her employee took the dog from the Arnolds' property.
  • Grimes transported the dog directly to a veterinarian for treatment.
  • After the dog received medical care, Grimes took the dog to her own home instead of returning it to the Arnolds.
  • A police officer, Officer Flaig, contacted Grimes and instructed her to return the dog to the Arnolds or the police.
  • Grimes refused to return the dog, stating she believed the dog would die if returned to the Arnolds.
  • Grimes subsequently placed the dog in two different foster homes, and her organization profited from artwork based on the dog's image.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Commonwealth charged Tammy Sneath Grimes with theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property.
  • Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion to preclude Grimes from arguing the defense of justification.
  • The trial court granted the Commonwealth's motion, ruling the justification defense inapplicable.
  • A jury in the trial court convicted Grimes on both counts on December 14, 2007.
  • The trial court sentenced Grimes to twelve months of probation, 300 hours of community service, payment of costs, and ordered the removal of the dog's image from the internet.
  • Grimes (Appellant) filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, challenging the preclusion of the justification defense, among other issues.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the statutory defense of justification under 18 Pa.C.S. § 503, which permits conduct necessary to avoid a harm or evil to "himself or to another," apply to a defendant's act of taking a dog to prevent what she believed was imminent harm to the animal?


Opinions:

Majority - Bender, J.

No, the statutory defense of justification does not apply to a defendant's act of taking a dog. The court reasoned that the plain language of 18 Pa.C.S. § 503, referring to harm to "himself or to another," is limited to human persons, as confirmed by the statutory definition of an "actor" as a person. Furthermore, under established Pennsylvania law, a dog is considered personal property, not a person, making the defense inapplicable. The court also held that even if the defense could apply, Grimes failed to meet its requirements because she did not exhaust all available legal alternatives, such as contacting the owners or repeatedly notifying authorities, before resorting to taking the dog.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of the justification defense in Pennsylvania, firmly establishing that it cannot be invoked for the protection of animals. By defining animals as personal property for the purpose of this defense, the court reinforces the traditional legal distinction between persons and property, limiting the 'choice of evils' rationale to situations involving human harm. This precedent significantly impacts animal rescue activities, warning activists that even well-intentioned seizures of animals from their owners can lead to criminal liability for theft, as the justification defense will be unavailable. The ruling forces advocates to work within established legal channels, like contacting humane officers, rather than taking direct action.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Commonwealth v. Grimes (2009) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.