People v. Alvarado
125 Cal.App.4th 1179, 5 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 581, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 391 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of animal cruelty under California Penal Code section 597, subdivision (a), which prohibits "maliciously and intentionally" maiming, mutilating, torturing, or wounding a living animal, is a general intent crime. This means the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to commit the proscribed act, not that they intended to achieve a further consequence.
Facts:
- Manuel Alvarado lived in a small studio apartment with his girlfriend, Mary Duarte, and her brother, Gregory Ballew.
- They shared the apartment with three dogs: Alvarado's dogs Pyro and Gizmo, and Ballew's dog Dixie.
- On December 6, 2002, Alvarado and Ballew spent the day and evening drinking beer, first at the apartment and then at a bar.
- After they returned home, Ballew entered the apartment to find overturned furniture, blood on the floor, and Alvarado in the bathroom rinsing a bleeding Gizmo in the bathtub.
- Later that night, a distraught Alvarado went to Duarte's workplace and told her that his dog Pyro was dead, eventually stating he had thrown the body by a shed.
- Sheriff's deputies responded to the apartment and found Gizmo cowering and bleeding in the bathtub.
- The deputies later discovered Pyro's dead body near a shed on the property.
- Veterinary necropsies revealed that both dogs had suffered multiple stab wounds, which were fatal for Pyro, and Gizmo had also suffered fatal blunt force trauma.
Procedural Posture:
- The district attorney charged Manuel Alvarado in a California superior court (trial court) with two counts of animal cruelty.
- Alvarado's first trial resulted in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict.
- At the second trial, the court instructed the jury that animal cruelty is a general intent crime.
- The jury convicted Alvarado on both counts of animal cruelty.
- Alvarado appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (intermediate appellate court), arguing the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction on the required criminal intent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the crime of animal cruelty, as defined in California Penal Code section 597, subdivision (a), a general intent crime or a specific intent crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Nares, Acting P. J.
Yes, the crime of animal cruelty under Penal Code § 597(a) is a general intent crime. The court reasoned that the statutory language describes a proscribed act—maiming, mutilating, etc.—without referencing an intent to achieve a further consequence. The statute lacks phrases typical of specific intent crimes, such as "with the intent to" or "for the purpose of." Citing precedent like People v. Atkins, the court held that the terms "maliciously" and "intentionally" in a penal statute typically define a general criminal intent. The court's conclusion is further supported by persuasive authority from other jurisdictions that have interpreted their similar animal cruelty statutes as requiring only general intent.
Concurring - McIntyre, J.
No, the crime is one of specific intent, but the conviction should be affirmed. Justice McIntyre argued that the statute requires an intent to achieve the specific result of maiming, mutilating, torturing, or wounding, not merely an intent to commit the act that causes that result. In his view, the proscribed conduct describes the end result, making it a specific intent crime. However, he concurred in the judgment because the trial court's jury instructions, which quoted the statute directly, effectively required the jury to find this specific intent to injure. Therefore, any error in labeling the crime as "general intent" or in failing to give a more specific instruction regarding intoxication was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Alvarado's intent.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mental state required for felony animal cruelty in California, resolving an issue of first impression for the state's appellate courts. By classifying the offense as a general intent crime, the court makes it more difficult for defendants to use a voluntary intoxication defense, which can only negate specific intent. The ruling aligns California's interpretation with several other states and reinforces the legal principle that statutory terms like "intentionally" and "maliciously," without further qualifying language, typically denote general intent. The concurrence, however, highlights the persistent doctrinal difficulty in distinguishing between general and specific intent, suggesting the labels themselves can be less important than whether the jury was properly instructed on the required mental state.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Alvarado