State v. Powell
446 S.E.2d 26, 336 N.C. 762 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentional, willful, or wanton violation of a municipal animal-restraint ordinance, which is deemed a safety ordinance, constitutes culpable negligence sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the violation proximately causes a person's death.
Facts:
- The defendant, Powell, owned two large Rottweilers, named Bruno and Woody, weighing 80 and 100 pounds respectively.
- Powell's dogs had a history of running loose in the neighborhood and had been picked up by Animal Control officers on at least three separate occasions prior to the fatal incident.
- Powell was aware of the dogs' ability to escape his fence; on one occasion after they dug out, an animal control officer advised him to fill the hole with cement, but he did not.
- On the evening of October 20, 1989, Powell's two dogs attacked and killed Hoke Lane Prevette while he was jogging in the neighborhood, away from Powell's property.
- Powell admitted to police that his dogs had been out twice on the day of the attack, and he had retrieved them earlier that evening.
- When police arrived at Powell's home to investigate, his immediate response was, 'Oh my God, what have they done now?'
- A neighbor had previously warned Powell that his dogs were a liability after witnessing them bolt towards a young child.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted for involuntary manslaughter in Forsyth County on December 4, 1989.
- A jury at the trial court level found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on culpable negligence for violating a Winston-Salem city ordinance.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years in prison.
- The defendant (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- A panel of the Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed the conviction, with one judge dissenting.
- The defendant (as appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on the dissent in the lower court and a grant of discretionary review.
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 an owner's intentional and repeated violation of a municipal ordinance requiring dog restraint, which proximately causes a person's death, constitute culpable negligence sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Frye, J.
Yes, an owner's intentional and repeated violation of a municipal ordinance requiring dog restraint, which proximately causes a person's death, constitutes culpable negligence sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter can be based on a culpably negligent act, which includes the intentional, willful, or wanton violation of a safety statute or ordinance that proximately results in death. The court determined that the Winston-Salem ordinance requiring dogs to be restrained is a safety ordinance because it is designed to protect both persons and property, as evidenced by its requirements to keep dogs confined and to ensure fencing is adequate to keep children from accessing the property. The State presented substantial evidence that Powell intentionally violated this ordinance through his repeated failures to secure his dogs. This violation was the proximate cause of Prevette's death, as it was foreseeable that 'some injury' could result from two large, aggressive dogs roaming freely, regardless of whether the state proved Powell had specific knowledge of their 'vicious propensities' in the traditional civil liability sense.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the potential for criminal liability for animal owners, establishing that a pattern of violating local animal control ordinances can elevate a tragic accident to felony involuntary manslaughter. The court lowers the foreseeability threshold in criminal cases based on safety ordinance violations, moving away from the stricter civil standard that often requires proof of the owner's knowledge of the animal's specific 'vicious propensities.' By classifying a local leash law as a 'safety ordinance,' the ruling signals that such regulations carry serious weight and that a reckless disregard for them can satisfy the 'culpable negligence' element for manslaughter, impacting how similar cases are prosecuted.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Powell