State v. Klingelhoets
814 N.W.2d 885, 341 Wis. 2d 432, 2012 WI App 55 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for the Class I felony of intentionally mistreating an animal resulting in its death under Wis. Stat. § 951.18(1) requires proof that the defendant intended to commit the act of mistreatment, not that the defendant specifically intended to cause the animal's death. The resulting death serves as a penalty enhancer for the intentional act of cruelty.
Facts:
- Shawn M. Klingelhoets and Tina Randolph were neighbors.
- On September 8, 2009, Randolph's seventeen-pound Jack Russell terrier, Shakes, was tied to a stake in her yard and was barking.
- Klingelhoets, from a distance of approximately 144 feet, used a high-powered air rifle with a scope to shoot Shakes.
- He shot the dog three times; the first two shots hit the dog's backside with no noticeable reaction.
- The third shot caused Shakes to collapse.
- Klingelhoets later stated he shot Shakes to give him a 'little sting in the butt' to make him stop barking.
- A veterinarian found that the third pellet penetrated the dog's spinal canal, causing severe complications including seizures and heart stoppages.
- Due to the severity of the injuries caused by the third shot, Shakes was euthanized.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Wisconsin prosecuted Shawn M. Klingelhoets in a state trial court.
- A jury convicted Klingelhoets of one Class I felony for intentionally mistreating an animal resulting in death and one Class A misdemeanor for intentionally shooting a tied animal with a deadly weapon.
- Klingelhoets filed a postconviction motion arguing that the jury was improperly instructed on the felony charge and that evidence was insufficient for the misdemeanor conviction.
- The trial court denied Klingelhoets' motion.
- Klingelhoets (appellant) appealed the judgment and the order denying his motion to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, with the State of Wisconsin 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 Class I felony conviction for intentionally mistreating an animal resulting in the animal's death under Wis. Stat. § 951.18(1) require the state to prove that the defendant intended to cause the animal's death, in addition to proving the defendant intended to mistreat the animal?
Opinions:
Majority - Gundrum, J.
No. A Class I felony conviction for intentionally mistreating an animal resulting in death does not require the state to prove the defendant intended to cause the animal's death. The court's reasoning is based on a plain language interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 951.18(1), which reads: 'Any person who intentionally violates [§] 951.02, resulting in the ... death of an animal, is guilty of a Class I felony.' The court found that the word 'intentionally' modifies only the first clause, 'violates § 951.02' (the act of cruel treatment), and not the second clause, 'resulting in the ... death of an animal.' This second clause acts as a penalty enhancer, increasing the severity of the crime if the intentional cruel treatment leads to a specific severe outcome, regardless of whether that outcome was intended. The court supported this by noting that other parts of the statute explicitly include a knowledge requirement (a 'mens rea' element) when the legislature intends for one to apply to the result of an action, and no such language is present here. The court also affirmed the misdemeanor conviction, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the high-powered pellet gun, from the manner in which it was used, constituted a 'deadly weapon.'
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mental state (mens rea) required for felony animal cruelty convictions in Wisconsin. By holding that the intent requirement applies only to the act of cruelty and not to the resulting death, the court makes it easier for prosecutors to secure felony convictions in cases where an animal dies. This removes the difficult burden of proving that a defendant had the specific intent to kill the animal, focusing instead on the intentional nature of the underlying cruel act and its fatal consequences. The ruling strengthens animal protection laws by holding individuals accountable for the full, foreseeable results of their intentional mistreatment of animals.
