State v. Davidson
267 Kan. 667, 1999 Kan. LEXIS 395, 987 P.2d 335 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's long-term course of conduct in creating a profound and foreseeable risk of harm, such as improperly training and failing to secure known aggressive dogs despite numerous warnings, can constitute reckless conduct manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, sufficient to support a conviction for second-degree murder.
Facts:
- Sabine Davidson acquired several Rottweiler dogs and engaged in Schutzhund training, a sport involving protection and bite work.
- Davidson focused exclusively on the aggression-building aspects of the training while neglecting crucial obedience, socialization, and control elements, contrary to expert advice.
- Over several years, Davidson's dogs were involved in numerous incidents, including escaping their enclosure, chasing and menacing neighbors and children, and displaying aggressive behavior.
- Multiple neighbors, an animal control officer, and dog training experts warned Davidson about the dogs' dangerous behavior and the inadequacy of their fenced enclosure.
- Despite knowing her dogs frequently escaped through a faulty gate, Davidson failed to secure it effectively, such as by using a chain.
- On the morning of April 24, 1997, three of Davidson's Rottweilers escaped their enclosure again.
- The dogs found 11-year-old Christopher Wilson and his younger brother at a school bus stop, chased them up a tree, and then mauled Christopher to death after he climbed down.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Kansas charged Sabine Davidson with reckless second-degree murder and endangering a child in the district court, which is the trial court.
- A jury found Davidson guilty of both charges.
- Davidson, as the appellant, appealed her conviction for reckless second-degree murder to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Kansas Supreme Court, on its own motion, transferred the appeal from the Court of Appeals for its own review, with the State of Kansas as the appellee.
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 dog owner's conduct of raising powerful dogs, fostering their aggression through improper training, ignoring expert advice and warnings, and repeatedly failing to properly secure them, constitute reckless second-degree murder when the dogs kill a person?
Opinions:
Majority - Allegrucci, J.
Yes, such conduct can constitute reckless second-degree murder. The court found that Davidson's actions went far beyond a simple failure to confine her dogs. Her conduct involved a long history of selecting powerful dogs, fostering their aggressive behavior through improper Schutzhund training, ignoring expert warnings about the dangers she was creating, and failing to remedy a known faulty enclosure despite numerous prior escapes and aggressive incidents. This pattern of creating an unreasonable risk and consciously disregarding the foreseeable consequences demonstrates an extreme indifference to the value of human life. The State was not required to prove she knew the dogs would specifically kill someone, only that she could have reasonably foreseen they could attack or injure someone, and her recklessness was so severe that it could be assimilated to purpose or knowledge, distinguishing it from mere manslaughter.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that a killing committed by a defendant's animals can rise to the level of second-degree murder in Kansas, not just involuntary manslaughter. It broadens the application of 'depraved heart' murder to include a long-term course of reckless conduct, rather than a single, spontaneous act. The decision sets a precedent that an owner's cumulative actions—such as improperly training dogs for aggression, ignoring repeated warnings, and failing to secure them—can demonstrate the requisite 'extreme indifference to human life.' This holding provides prosecutors with a basis to seek murder charges in extreme cases of animal-induced fatalities where the owner's conduct shows a conscious disregard for a known and profound risk to the public.
