Haefele v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 18 October 2022
• Docket Number: Record No. 0508-21-2
• Parties: Andrew Joseph HAEFELE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

75 Va.App. 591

878 S.E.2d 422

Andrew Joseph HAEFELE

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 0508-21-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond.

October 18, 2022

James Joseph Ilijevich, Fredericksburg, for appellant.

Leanna C. Minix, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Beales and White

OPINION BY JUDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES

Andrew J. Haefele appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County convicting him of two counts of maliciously maiming the livestock of another, in violation of Code § 18.2-144, and two counts of conspiring to maliciously maim the livestock of another.¹ On appeal, Haefele contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of violating Code § 18.2-144 because he "acted with the permission and consent of the owner of the animals." He also contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of conspiring to maliciously maim the livestock of another because "the Commonwealth failed to prove the underlying felony offense."

I. BACKGROUND

"In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, [as] the prevailing party at trial." Gerald v. Commonwealth , 295 Va. 469, 472, 813 S.E.2d 722 (2018) (quoting Scott v. Commonwealth , 292 Va. 380, 381, 789 S.E.2d 608 (2016) ). So viewed, Halie Morgan owned two small goats and kept them on her property in Spotsylvania County. In May 2020, following several complaints from neighbors, Dena Slingerland—a Code Enforcement Officer for the Spotsylvania County Zoning Office—informed Morgan that "the keeping of livestock is a non-permitted use" on her property, given its zoning. Slingerland instructed Morgan to promptly remove the goats from her property and offered her assistance in relocating the goats.

On June 18, 2020, C.P.,² Morgan's neighbor, saw Morgan and three men—later identified as Andrew Haefele, Donald Compton, and Charles McKinney—inside Morgan's goat pen. C.P. testified that she saw a man in a white shirt (later identified as Haefele) swinging "what looked like a two-by-four with spikes wrapped around it" at the goats "as if it was a bat." While Haefele "continued to swing at the goats," C.P. saw Morgan order her two dogs to attack the goats, and she observed McKinney standing "a little further back." C.P. also observed Compton recording the brutal attack on his cell phone, and C.P. herself recorded on her cell phone some of what she was viewing.

Another neighbor, M.J., also "heard a ruckus out back" and observed "someone swinging some sort of object" in Morgan's backyard. He reported the group's activities to "Spotsylvania County law enforcement," and a short time later, Deputy A. Mele of the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office arrived at Morgan's property. Deputy Mele spoke with McKinney and Compton and informed them that the Sheriff's Office had received a "complaint about the goats on the property being hit with possible sticks or poles." When the deputy asked them what had happened to the goats, McKinney claimed "[t]hat the goats had been picked up that morning" by a disposal company. The deputy then left without conducting a search of the property.

Deputy Mele then spoke with Morgan's neighbors. C.P. showed the deputy cell phone video footage that she had taken of what had just occurred with the goats. After viewing this footage, Deputy Mele became "worried that there were injured animals" in Morgan's backyard and returned to Morgan's property. Deputy Mele spoke with Compton and McKinney again and this time also spoke with Morgan, who also claimed that a disposal company had picked up the goats that morning. Morgan consented to a search of her property. During the deputies’ search of the property, they "found two deceased goats" in two separate locations—each of which was covered.

A subsequent search of Compton's cell phone revealed several videos depicting the group's attack on the goats.³ In one video, Haefele had armed himself with a "spiked mace," which is essentially a wooden club with metal spikes protruding from one end. He violently swung the weapon at one of the goats, but he missed the goat and struck a wooden structure instead. As the goat ran from Haefele, Compton exclaimed, "Strike one! That woulda taken its head right off, dude!" Haefele then instructed Compton to hand him some goat feed and poured it on the ground. As the goats ate, Haefele swung at and hit one of the goats with the spiked club, which caused both goats to flee. Haefele continued to seek out opportunities to hit the goats by again attempting to lure them toward him.

As also recorded on the video, Morgan suggested that they just let her dogs kill the goats instead, to which Compton exclaimed, "That's awesome! That's Animal Cruelty 101!" Morgan then got the dogs agitated, released them into the goat pen, and repeatedly encouraged the dogs to "get ‘em." The dogs chased the goats for approximately five minutes but did not kill the goats. Even as the dogs chased the goats, Haefele continued to move around the pen and hit the goats with the spiked club. At one point, Compton instructed Haefele "to go after the weak one" and exclaimed that the goat had "too much pep left in his step." When one of the goats climbed onto a wooden structure in the goat pen, Haefele took the opportunity to strike it with the spiked club—knocking the goat to the ground. One of the men joked, "That was his homerun swing right there!" Throughout the attack on the goats, the group can be heard gleefully making jokes and laughing about causing the goats’ injuries and suffering.

After several blows from the spiked club and several minutes of being chased by Morgan's dogs, Morgan lamented that the goats just would not die. Compton offered to retrieve his shotgun from the nearby house, but he did not ultimately retrieve it. In a second video, McKinney grabbed one of the goats and slashed at the goat's neck with a machete⁴ until it could no longer run away.

The goat bleated and writhed as it died. In a third video, Haefele grabbed hold of the other goat, pinned it down, and repeatedly struck at the goat's neck with a machete. Despite numerous blows, the goat was still breathing so McKinney approached and cut its throat with a knife.

Haefele, Compton, McKinney, and Morgan were tried jointly in a bench trial on January 6, 2021. At trial, Dr. Jaime Weisman testified as an "expert in veterinary pathology and forensics." She testified that she performed a necropsy on the two goats. During the necropsies, she observed that one goat had "a minimum of four chop wounds to the neck and the head" and that the other goat had "a minimum of six chop wounds" to the neck and back of the head. She testified that "the chop wounds are gonna be the root cause" of the goats’ deaths, but that she also found evidence of bleeding in the brain

. She agreed that "[t]hese animals suffered" before they died.

The Commonwealth also called Dr. Lincoln Montgomery-Rodgers to testify as an expert in "livestock veterinary medicine." He testified that the American Veterinary Medical Association ("AVMA") "has extensive guidelines on what constitutes acceptable methods of euthanasia for a variety of species." According to Dr. Montgomery-Rodgers's testimony, the AVMA specifically prohibits the use of "[b]lunt force trauma" on certain animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats, "because of the thickness of the skull." He explained that these guidelines are also "used by the meat packing industry" to establish "what would constitute the least painful or most efficient way to dispatch an animal." He agreed that "a spiked mace" was not an acceptable way to kill a goat. In addition, he testified that "the most common method for at-home slaughter [of a goat] would be a gunshot to the head to render the animal unconscious, and then severing the jugular vein and carotid arteries with a sharp knife to exsanguinate the animal and actually kill him."

The trial judge convicted Haefele of two counts of maliciously maiming the livestock of another, in violation of Code § 18.2-144, and two counts of conspiring to maliciously maim the livestock of another.⁵ Haefele now appeals to this Court.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Haefele contends that he could not be convicted under Code § 18.2-144 "because the defendant [Haefele] was acting with the permission of, and in concert with, the owner of the animals in question." He argues "that all crimes relating to property in Chapter 5 of [Title 18.2 of] the Code of Virginia, have some element, express or otherwise, of trespass against the interests of another (person or entity)." He argues that Code § 18.2-144, which is located in that portion of the Code, requires the Commonwealth to show "the trespass against the animal owner's property, as well as the crime against the animal itself."

A. Interpreting Code § 18.2-144

Haefele's argument requires this Court to analyze Code § 18.2-144. "Statutory interpretation is a question of law which we review de novo." Wright v. Commonwealth , 278 Va. 754, 759, 685 S.E.2d 655 (2009) (citing Washington v. Commonwealth , 272 Va. 449, 455, 634 S.E.2d 310 (2006) ). "When construing a statute, our primary objective is ‘to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent,’ as expressed by the language used in the statute." Blake v. Commonwealth , 288 Va. 375, 381, 764 S.E.2d 105 (2014) (quoting Cuccinelli v. Rector, Visitors of the Univ. of Va. , 283 Va. 420, 425, 722 S.E.2d 626 (2012) ).

"[W]e must assume that ‘the legislature chose, with care, the words it used when it enacted the relevant statute, and we are bound by those words as we interpret the statute.’ " City of Va. Beach v. ESG Enters., Inc. , 243 Va. 149, 153, 413 S.E.2d 642 (1992) (quoting Barr v. Town & Country Props., Inc. , 240 Va. 292, 295, 396 S.E.2d 672 (1990) ). Consequently, we "apply[ ] the plain meaning of the words unless they are ambiguous or...