State in Interest of Rowland
509 So. 2d 779 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of lethal force against an animal is not justified as a defense of property under Louisiana's cruelty to animals statute if the animal is no longer presenting an active threat and the force is used after the trespass or attack has concluded.
Facts:
- James R. Rowland, a 15-year-old, was raising eight ducks at the home of a family friend, David Fish.
- After two of his ducks had been killed, Rowland believed a beagle dog named Roscoe and another dog were responsible.
- The beagle belonged to Mike and Mrs. Blackwelder, who lived nearby and frequently passed the Fish residence with their dog.
- On September 17, 1986, Rowland's and Blackwelder's accounts of the events differed.
- According to Rowland, he saw Roscoe in the yard with one of his ducks in its mouth. Per David Fish's instruction, Rowland retrieved a gun.
- Rowland stated that the dog dropped the duck, went into the front yard, turned and looked at him, at which point Rowland shot and killed the dog.
- According to Mike Blackwelder, he was jogging on the road with Roscoe following behind him when Rowland shot the dog, and Roscoe had not entered the Fish's yard.
- Rowland admitted in his testimony that he intended to kill the dog.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana filed a petition in district court alleging that James R. Rowland, a juvenile, was a delinquent child for violating the state's cruelty to animals statute.
- Following a trial, the district court judge adjudicated Rowland a delinquent child.
- The court ordered that Rowland be placed on probation for one year with the condition that he make restitution to the owner of the dog.
- Rowland, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
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 a person's intentional killing of a dog that had previously attacked his property constitute unjustifiable cruelty to animals when the dog had retreated and was no longer an active threat at the moment it was killed?
Opinions:
Majority - Sexton, J.
Yes, the killing of the dog constitutes unjustifiable cruelty to animals. To secure a conviction for cruelty to animals, the state must prove intent, the killing of an animal, and a lack of justification. While the defense of property can serve as a justification, the force used must be both reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or trespass. In this case, even under the juvenile's version of the facts, the dog had concluded its attack and retreated from the property. Therefore, the use of lethal force was not necessary to prevent the offense, as the offense was no longer in progress. Furthermore, the court found that shooting a small dog under these circumstances was patently unreasonable. The court distinguished this case from prior precedents where killing an animal was deemed justified because those cases involved animals that were actively attacking property or exhibiting vicious propensities at the moment the force was used.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the temporal limits of the justification defense in animal cruelty prosecutions. It establishes that the defense of property is not available as a post-hoc justification after an animal has ceased its attack or trespass. The decision emphasizes that the force used must be contemporaneous with the threat to be considered 'necessary to prevent' the offense. This ruling narrows the scope of permissible self-help for property owners and reinforces that lethal force against an animal is an extreme measure reserved for ongoing, active threats, not retaliation.
