People v. Youngblood
91 Cal.App.4th 66, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 7899 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law defense of necessity is unavailable when a defendant's actions, aimed at preventing a perceived harm, are contrary to the express public policy established by a comprehensive legislative scheme addressing that specific harm.
Facts:
- To avoid Sacramento County's four-cat limit, the defendant moved approximately 35-40 cats into a small trailer on Terrance Deveany's property in Placer County in October 1998.
- She continued to collect stray cats, eventually accumulating 92 in the 7.5-foot by 11-foot trailer.
- Although she initially lived near the trailer to care for the cats, she eventually moved back to Sacramento County and only visited them periodically.
- In the two weeks prior to the cats' discovery, the defendant was sick and her visits became less frequent.
- On December 31, 1998, Placer County Animal Control Officer Robert Carter, responding to a complaint, found the trailer and noted a strong smell of ammonia, visible feces and urine, and cats that appeared ill.
- After the trailer was seized, a veterinarian examined the 92 cats and found them to be suffering from malnourishment, dehydration, various diseases, infections, and other ailments consistent with long-term inadequate care.
- The defendant stated that she knew she had too many cats but believed her actions were necessary to save their lives from potential euthanasia.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged by information in a state trial court with seven counts of felony animal cruelty.
- At trial, the defendant's request for a jury instruction on the defense of necessity was denied by the trial court.
- A jury found the defendant guilty of one count of animal cruelty (relating to all 92 cats) and not guilty on the other six counts.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years of formal probation, including a condition of 92 days in county jail.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the intermediate Court of Appeal.
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 affirmative defense of necessity available to a defendant charged with felony animal cruelty who claims her actions were necessary to save stray cats from potential euthanasia, when the legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme for the care and disposition of such animals?
Opinions:
Majority - Nicholson, J.
No, under the facts of this case, the defense of necessity was not available. The defense is founded on public policy, and a defendant cannot invoke it when her actions directly contravene the public policy established by the legislature. The California legislature has created a comprehensive statutory scheme (in the Civil Code and Food & Agricultural Code) that governs the handling, care, and potential euthanasia of stray and abandoned animals. These statutes represent the state's public policy, which explicitly finds that it is better for public and private shelters to handle such animals than for private citizens. The defendant's decision to hoard cats in cruel conditions to prevent their potential euthanasia by animal control is in direct opposition to this established public policy. Therefore, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the application of the necessity defense in cases involving animal welfare. It establishes that a defendant's personal, subjective belief that they are preventing a greater harm cannot justify criminal conduct when that conduct flouts a detailed legislative framework designed to address the very same issue. The ruling reinforces the principle that courts will defer to legislative policy judgments, preventing the necessity defense from becoming a loophole for individuals who disagree with established laws, particularly in highly regulated areas like animal control. This precedent makes it much more difficult for animal hoarders to use a "rescue" narrative as a legal defense against cruelty charges.
