Taub v. State
463 A.2d 819, 296 Md. 439, 42 A.L.R. 4th 853 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's general animal cruelty statute does not apply to a research institute conducting medical and scientific research under a federal program when such activities cause unavoidable pain incidental to the research, especially where comprehensive federal regulations already govern animal care in such facilities.
Facts:
- Dr. Edward Taub was the chief scientific investigator in charge of animal research at the Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR), which operated a laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland.
- IBR's laboratory received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for specific animal research.
- The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was responsible for inspecting IBR's laboratory under the Federal Animal Welfare Act.
- During May-September 1981, Dr. Taub conducted NIH-funded research aimed at gathering information to retrain human beings afflicted with strokes.
- To simulate stroke effects, Dr. Taub performed somatosensory deafferentation, a surgical procedure that abolished all sensation in the limbs of monkeys.
- A former employee of the laboratory furnished information regarding conditions at IBR.
Procedural Posture:
- Montgomery County police investigated conditions at the Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR) based on information from a former employee.
- Police seized a colony of monkeys from the IBR laboratory pursuant to a court order.
- In January 1982, the county State’s Attorney filed a seventeen-count criminal information against Dr. Taub in District Court, charging him with violating Maryland Code, Article 27, § 59 for various acts of animal cruelty.
- Following a trial, the District Court found Dr. Taub guilty of failing to provide necessary veterinary care for six monkeys and acquitted him of all other charges.
- Dr. Taub appealed his conviction to the circuit court (an intermediate appellate court).
- A jury in the circuit court found Dr. Taub guilty of one charge of failing to provide necessary veterinary care for one monkey named Nero.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) granted certiorari to consider a question of public importance.
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 the Maryland animal cruelty statute, Article 27, § 59, apply to a research institute conducting medical and scientific research pursuant to a federal program?
Opinions:
Majority - Couch, J.
No, the Maryland animal cruelty statute is not applicable to a research institute conducting medical and scientific research pursuant to a federal program. The court found that the legislative history of Maryland's animal cruelty statute (Article 27, § 59) consistently demonstrated concern with punishing acts causing “unnecessary” or “unjustifiable” pain or suffering. The legislature explicitly recognized that the statute does not apply to “normal human activities to which the infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable,” citing examples like food processing, pest elimination, animal training, and hunting. The court inferred that the legislature was aware of the comprehensive Federal Animal Welfare Act, which aims to ensure humane care for research animals while explicitly preserving the validity of animal use in research. Furthermore, IBR's laboratory was subject to detailed USDA regulations and NIH grant regulations governing animal care and treatment. Given this legislative intent and the extensive federal oversight, the court concluded that the legislature did not intend for the state animal cruelty statute to apply to federally funded medical research activities.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the reach of state animal cruelty statutes in areas subject to extensive federal regulation, particularly scientific research. It establishes that legislative intent, coupled with the existence of comprehensive federal oversight, can create an exemption for activities that might otherwise fall under state animal cruelty laws. The ruling provides a shield for research institutions, signaling that activities causing incidental and unavoidable pain in the pursuit of scientific advancement under federal guidelines may not be subject to state-level criminal prosecution. Future cases involving overlapping state and federal regulations concerning animal welfare or other regulated activities may look to this decision for guidance on legislative intent and preemption arguments.
