People v. Collier
| Decision Date | 03 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-16-2519,1-16-2519 |
| Citation | 2020 IL App (1st) 162519,442 Ill.Dec. 564,160 N.E.3d 137 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel COLLIER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Richard Connor Morley, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Annette Collins, and Retha Stotts, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Defendant Samuel Collier was charged with and convicted of theft and cruel treatment to animals. He appeals his convictions, arguing that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that his indictment was defective, and that the animal cruelty statute is unconstitutional. We affirm.
¶ 3 Chicago police officers were tasked with investigating reports of animal abuse at 217 N. Lorel Street in Chicago. Officer Joseph Chausse, who was assigned to the case, visited the residence three times during a week in February 2015. On one of the days, the temperature outside was 15 degrees and Officer Chausse observed a dog chained to a pole outside. On another visit, Officer Chausse saw the same dog chained outside on a cold day and then saw defendant bring the dog inside. The dog matched the description of a dog that had been stolen in the neighborhood.
¶ 4 Officer Chausse obtained a search warrant for the property at 217 N. Lorel and officers executed the warrant on February 18, 2015. When the officers gained entry into the residence, they were overcome by the strong odor of urine and feces. Officer Chausse stated that the residence was cold, with no real discernable difference from the outside temperature. Officer Chausse also indicated that the house had no running water and was in "all kinds of disarray."
¶ 5 After going through the residence, the officers found a total of four dogs. The dogs were recovered from rooms that contained piles of feces, including a second-floor bathtub that was filled with feces. One of the rooms housing a female bulldog had a pile of feces that had been swept into the corner. The whole place reeked of urine. Two of the dogs were in cages and two were not. The dogs were being kept in rooms that did not have food or water, and Officer Chausse believed that a couple of the dogs appeared to be skinny.
¶ 6 In one of the second-floor rooms, Officer Chausse found a bulldog that was primarily black. The dog was subsequently confirmed to be Romeo, a dog owned by Kenneth Olivo that had been stolen from his back yard. When Romeo was returned to Olivo, Olivo noticed that portions of Romeo's body had been painted black, but that the paint was beginning to peel off around the dog's lips. Despite the paint, Olivio was able to identify the dog as his by other distinct markings.
¶ 7 After going through the house and observing the conditions, Officer Chausse arrested defendant and interviewed him. Defendant admitted that he knew one of the dogs was stolen and was painted to alter his appearance, but that he did not steal the dog. Defendant told officer Chausse that he was breeding the dogs. As it turned out, one of the dogs was pregnant. Defendant told the officers that he was living in Naperville, but that he came back to the North Lorel residence to check on the dogs. The police officers contacted animal control, and an animal control officer came to the residence and took custody of the dogs.
¶ 8 Arthur Ayala, an employee for the City of Chicago Animal Control, removed the dogs from the residence because of the temperature in the house, because the dogs did not have proper access to food and water, and because of the feces littering the residence. A veterinarian evaluated the dogs and, for the most part, found the dogs to be in good condition.
¶ 9 Defendant went to trial for theft and cruel treatment to animals. After a bench trial, the trial judge found him guilty of one count of theft and four counts of cruel treatment to animals. Defendant had previously been convicted for cruel treatment to animals, so these subsequent convictions became felony convictions. Defendant was sentenced to two years in prison. He now appeals.
¶ 11 Defendant argues that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to prove his guilt for cruel treatment to animals. Defendant contends that the only evidence supporting his convictions was photographs of a house in "less-than-ideal" condition, but that all the dogs were found to be in good health, so the condition of the house alone did not prove that the dogs were being treated cruelly.
¶ 12 When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we must decide whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Jones, 219 Ill. 2d 1, 33, 300 Ill.Dec. 709, 845 N.E.2d 598 (2006). A reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, and will not reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence unless the evidence admitted is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that it raises a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. Id. It is not the reviewing court's function to retry the defendant. People v. Ware , 2019 IL App (1st) 160989, ¶ 45, 433 Ill.Dec. 226, 131 N.E.3d 1071. The trier of fact assesses the credibility of the witnesses, determines the appropriate weight of the testimony and resolves conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. People v. Johnson , 2015 IL App (1st) 123249, ¶ 21, 389 Ill.Dec. 496, 26 N.E.3d 586. A criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.
Ware , 2019 IL App (1st) 160989, ¶ 45, 433 Ill.Dec. 226, 131 N.E.3d 1071.
¶ 13 The Humane Care for Animals Act ( 510 ILCS 70/1 et seq. (West 2018)) makes it a crime to treat animals cruelly. The Act provides that "[n]o person or owner may beat, cruelly treat, torment, starve, overwork or otherwise abuse any animal." 50 ILCS 70/3.01(a) (West 2018). Defendant argues that the evidence did not prove that he violated this statute.
¶ 14 Defendant's characterization of the evidence is that because the animals did not require medical treatment, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the dogs were cruelly treated. Defendant contends that the only reliable evidence that the dogs were treated badly was the presence of feces and urine in the residence, but that such evidence is insufficient to prove a defendant guilty of cruel treatment to animals.
¶ 15 Despite defendant's protestations to the contrary, there was more than just the presence of feces and urine to demonstrate that the dogs were treated cruelly such as to constitute a violation of the statute, though that evidence alone was compelling. The State also introduced evidence to show that defendant was keeping at least one of the dogs chained up outside in 15-degree weather. Officer Chausse testified that the temperature inside the house was not materially different than the temperature outside despite that it was February in Chicago, and the house had no running water.
¶ 16 There was evidence introduced at trial that defendant underfed the dogs, including a dog that was pregnant. Defendant kept two of the dogs in cages that were littered with feces and urine-soaked bedding. One dog had alopecia that was not treated and another dog had an ear infection that was not treated. While there was evidence that there was a bowl of dog food in the house, there was no evidence that the dogs had immediate access to that food. There was no food found in the rooms in which the dogs were kept. The police officer and the animal control worker who testified both stated their belief that the dogs were underfed. The only evidence that there was any water for the dogs was a photograph of a bowl filled with a brown liquid that was apparently frozen. Otherwise, Officer Chausse testified that he did not observe that the dogs had any access to water.
¶ 17 The house itself was demonstrated to be in such poor condition that keeping four dogs there could be considered inhumane. The house did not have running water or heat. It was littered with trash, urine, and feces. The feces had been swept into a pile in the corner of one room and a bathtub in the residence was filled with feces. The large amount of animal waste created an overpowering smell that the officers detected as soon as they entered the residence. Defendant admitted that he did not live there with the dogs, but that he instead lived with his girlfriend in another city. Defendant's knowledge of the mistreatment was demonstrated by, among other things, the fact that a pile of feces was swept into a corner of the upstairs bedroom and another pile was deposited into the bathtub.
¶ 18 Similar cases in other jurisdictions have led to convictions for cruelty to animals. See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Erickson , 74 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 177-78, 905 N.E.2d 127 (); State v. Johnson , No. W2001-01272-CCA-R3CD, 2002 WL 1426547, at *19 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 26, 2002) (); State ex rel. Gregan v. Koczur , 287 Conn. 145, 157-58, 947 A.2d 282 (2008) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zamora
...the plain language of section 3.01 does not require that the dogs have demonstrable physical or psychological injury. See People v. Collier , 2020 IL App (1st) 162519, ¶¶ 11, 13, 20, 442 Ill.Dec. 564, 160 N.E.3d 137 (finding evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction unde......