Hill v. State Of Ind.
| Decision Date | 15 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 01A02-1002-CR-181,01A02-1002-CR-181 |
| Parties | RICK HILL, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
MATTHEW G. GRANTHAM
Bowers Brewer Garrett & Wiley, LLP
Huntington, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
APPEAL FROM THE ADAMS SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Patrick R. Miller, Judge
Rick Hill appeals his convictions for twelve counts of class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal and one count of class D felony improper disposal of an animal that has died.
We affirm.
At all times relevant herein, Hill owned thirty-seven1 Arabian horses, which he stabled in his Adams County facility. In July of 2009, Kim Myers observed "underweight" horses with "just skin hanging on their bones" and "protruding" ribs and backbones on Hill's property. (Tr. 272, 277, 275). There was no available feed and "a big stock tank with green water in it." (Tr. 273). Myers contacted Hill's neighbor, Eric Stockman, in hopes of reaching Hill.
When Myers reached Eric, she learned that Hill was out of town; and that Eric was charged with the care of Hill's herd. Since mid-May of 2009, Eric and Hill had developed "an understanding" that Eric would care for the horses "if [Eric] could tell [that Hill] was gone." (Tr. 281). Hill's trips ranged in duration from "a few days" to "two weeks." (Tr. 281). On multiple occasions when Hill was away, Eric bought hay (Tr. 282).
Eric enlisted the aid of his father, Don Stockman. Don became concerned about the condition of Hill's horses and the facility in general, because "there was [sic] too many horses and too little feed"; "a lot of [the horses] were skin and bones, thin, real thin"; and the water supply was "[d]irty, filthy, and a lot of the containers had green moss in the[m]." (Tr. 292, 292, 293). Don reported the conditions to the Adams County Sheriffs Department.
In July and August of 2009, Officer Shane Rekeweg of the Adams County Sheriff's Department received complaints from Myers and Don regarding the condition of Hill's horses. He subsequently sought and obtained a search warrant for Hill's premises. On August 10, 2009, Rekeweg and two veterinarians2 executed the search warrant. They photographed the horses, numbered them sequentially, and assessed their physical condition; they also photographed the general condition of the facility.
Their search revealed the decaying carcass of a horse or cow in Hill's barn. (Tr. 390). The carcass showed no signs of having been previously buried or burned.
Rekeweg and the veterinary experts observed that although Hill had provided some feed and water for his horses, the hay was situated such that it was inaccessible to the horses; the water container(s) "had algae growing in [them] or [contained] mosquito larvae," (tr. 316); and the grazing pasture "was mostly weeds," which "[m]ost horses won't eat." (Tr. 315). Thirteen of the horses (numbers #4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, and 36, respectively) appeared to be malnourished and rated approximately "ones or twos" on the body condition scale. (Tr. 364).
On August 11, 2009, the State charged Hill with one count of class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal. On August 12, 2009, the trial court issued an order to temporarily confiscate the horses. On August 14, 2009, the trial ordered the horses removed to the Adams County fairgrounds.3 On August 19, 2009, the State amended its charging information to reflect the following charges: count 1, class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal; count 2, class D felony improper disposal of an animal that has died; and counts 3-15, thirteen additional counts of class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.
On January 6, 2010, the State filed a second amended information, wherein it alleged the following: count 1, class D felony improper disposal of animals that have died; and counts 2-14, thirteen counts of class A misdemeanor cruelty to horses.
(Tr. 164). The trial court issued an order in limine barring Hill "from arguing jury nullification in opening or closing arguments." (App. 122).
On January 11 and 12, 2010, the trial court conducted a jury trial. Among its preliminary instructions to the jury, the trial court stated, (App. 125). In its final instructions to the jury, the trial court reiterated this instruction. (App. 93).
The jury found Hill guilty of class D felony improper disposal of an animal after it has died and twelve class A misdemeanor counts of cruelty to an animal, and found him not guilty of one count of class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal. On February 9, 2010, the trial court sentenced Hill to 545 days on the improper disposal of a dead animalconviction and 365 days on each of the animal cruelty convictions. The court ordered the animal cruelty sentences served concurrently with one another, but consecutive to the sentence for improper disposal of a dead animal. The trial court also ordered Hill to make restitution in the amount of $9,296.84 to reimburse Adams County for the cost of caring for and placing the horses. Hill now appeals.
Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Hill argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred in issuing the order in limine as to jury nullification; and that his twelve convictions for cruelty to an animal constituted a single offense under the continuing crime doctrine.
Hill argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he improperly disposed of a dead animal. He does not challenge the State's evidence of the elements, but rather, invites us to construe the applicable statute to include an additional element-namely, that the dead animal's body actually produced a nuisance. We cannot.
Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Fought v. State, 898 N.E.2d 447, 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and thereasonable inferences drawn therefrom, and will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Id.
Indiana Code section 15-17-11-20 provides, in part, as follows:
I.C. § 15-17-11-20 (emphasis added).
Hill argues that we should "interpret [Indiana Code section 15-17-11-20(a)] such that so long as no nuisance results, no criminal action will lie for improper disposal of a dead animal." Hill's Br. at 7. He maintains that his proposed statutory construction "better effectuates the legislative intent" because "[t]he interest of the State lies in the public health, not in the proper burial of animals per se." Id.
The primary goal in statutory construction is to determine, give effect to, and implement the intent of the legislature. State v. Dugan, 793 N.E.2d 1034, 1036 (Ind. 2003). The best evidence of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself, and all words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless indicated by statute. Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2001). If the language of a statute is clearand unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial interpretation. Dunn v. State, 900 N.E.2d 1291, 1292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
The instant statute is not subject to judicial interpretation. The clear and unambiguous language of Indiana Code section 15-17-11-20(a) provides that an animal owner or caregiver must take steps to dispose of the dead animal within twenty-four hours of learning of the death. When read together with Chapter 1 of Article 17, which states the various "purposes of this article," our legislature's intent with...
To continue reading
Request your trial