State v. Doll
| Decision Date | 28 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 55315-5-II |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JOHN FREDRICK DOLL, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
John Fredrick Doll fired a rifle across a street, gravely injuring a neighbor's pet cat. Neighbors found the injured cat the next morning and it had to be euthanized. After a bench trial, Doll was convicted of first degree animal cruelty and discharge of a firearm in a public place. As required by statute, the trial court prohibited Doll from owning, caring for, or residing with any similar animal, including his pet dog, as part of his sentence.
Doll appeals. He argues that the State did not prove an essential element of first degree animal cruelty and that the animal cruelty statute is unconstitutionally vague. He also contends that the postconviction mandatory ban on owning similar animals violates the cruel punishment clause of article I section 14 of the Washington Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
We affirm Doll's convictions and sentence. We hold that sufficient evidence supports the challenged conviction, and that the animal cruelty statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Doll's conduct. And we hold that the lifetime ban on owning similar animals that arose as a result of Doll's conviction for first degree animal cruelty did not violate article I, section 14 or the Eighth Amendment.
One night in May 2020, Doll fired two bullets at a cat in an alley across the street from his backyard. Neighbors heard the gunfire and the cat's cry of pain around 9:00 p.m and went to investigate in the daylight the next morning. They found the cat in an alley behind their house, across the street from Doll's house. The cat was visibly injured vocalizing in pain, and had no use of its hind legs. The cat's owner took it to an emergency veterinarian. Due to a spinal cord injury and a poor prognosis for recovery, the cat was euthanized.
Police searched Doll's residence and found a .22 caliber rifle loaded with ammunition. Police also found a .22 caliber shell casing near the fence that bordered Doll's property in a location with "a direct clear view of where the cat was shot." Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Sept. 23 2020) at 60. The distance from the fence to the location of the cat was approximately 45 yards, about half a football field.
The State charged Doll with first degree animal cruelty, reckless endangerment, and discharge of a firearm in a public place. For animal cruelty, the State alleged that Doll "intentionally and unlawfully inflict[ed] substantial pain on and cause[d] physical injury to, to-wit: a cat named Ebony, by means causing undue suffering to said animal or while manifesting an extreme indifference to life." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 17. Doll waived his right to a jury trial.
Joseph Edmonson, a neighbor who heard the gunshots and found the cat, testified at Doll's bench trial. Edmonson testified that he and his family were outside in their backyard around 9:00 p.m. when they heard two gunshots approximately 30 seconds apart, the second followed by the cat's scream. The scream came from the alley behind Edmonson's house. Edmonson, who had experience with firearms from hunting, identified the shots as coming from "a high-powered air rifle or like a light load .22 that might be used for shooting grouse." VRP (Sept. 23, 2020) at 24. He believed the shots were fired from across the street. Doll's house was directly across the street from Edmonson's house, and there were no other houses nearby on that side of the street. Edmonson did not believe the shots could have come from a pedestrian on the street because his dogs were in his yard at the time of the shooting and would have barked at someone walking along the street.
The veterinarian testified that the cat was vocalizing in pain when examined the next morning and that it had no use of its hind legs. The injury to the cat's spine was consistent with a gunshot or "trajectory-type" wound. Id. at 47. The cat's prognosis was "poor to grave," so it was euthanized. Id. at 48.
Doll and his wife both testified that Doll had been watching television at a cousin's house until midnight on the night in question. Doll testified he found a cat inside his fenced yard when he returned home after midnight, and that particular cat had previously scratched him and his dog. Doll testified that he got his .22 pistol, shot at the cat while it was inside his yard, then reached over his fence and fired into the ground after the cat fled. Doll said that he only wanted to scare the cat with the noise of the gunshots.
The trial court found that Edmonson was a credible witness and that Doll's and his wife's testimony was not persuasive.
The trial court discussed the elements of first degree animal cruelty in its oral ruling and written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that Doll fired two shots from a .22 caliber rifle from over his fence into the alley, a distance of approximately 45 yards. Because of the distance between Doll's property and the cat's location, the trial court concluded that "Doll was intentionally shooting at [the cat] to, at a minimum, cause substantial pain and physical injury." Id. at 131. "Aiming and firing twice at a cat located 45 yards away shows intent [to shoot the cat] and an indifference to life." CP at 41. When Edmondson found the cat, it "had been laying in the alley, suffering, for nearly twelve hours." Id.
The trial court orally stated that its findings were intended to cover both possible means of first degree animal cruelty charged by the State-inflicting substantial pain on and causing physical injury to an animal-with additional findings that Doll committed his actions by means "causing undue suffering . . . or while manifesting extreme indifference to life" by shooting across the street. VRP (Sept. 23, 2020) at 136. "It's not like you're going to put the animal down by shooting it in a location where you know the animal will die instantly." Id. The trial court concluded that Doll "intentionally and unlawfully inflicted both substantial pain and physical injury" to the cat and that "the substantial pain and physical injury was inflicted in a manner causing undue suffering and manifesting an extreme indifference to life." CP at 43. The trial court found Doll guilty of first degree animal cruelty and of discharging a firearm in a public place but acquitted him of reckless endangerment.
Doll was sentenced to 30 days of confinement. In addition, former RCW 16.52.200(4)(b) (2016) permanently barred anyone convicted of first degree animal cruelty "from owning, caring for, or residing with any similar animals" to the one harmed in the offense.[1] "Similar animal" was defined as "[f]or a mammal, another animal that is in the same taxonomic order." Former RCW 16.52.011(2)(q) (2019). This prohibition was included in Doll's judgment and sentence.
At the time of his sentencing, Doll owned a dog. Cats and dogs are the same taxonomic order, Carnivora. The trial court informed Doll at sentencing that he would not be able to have a household pet. The trial court also prohibited Doll from owning or possessing firearms and required forfeiture of the firearm used to shoot the cat.
Doll filed a CrR 7.8 motion seeking relief from the prohibition on owning similar animals. At the CrR 7.8 hearing, Doll argued that the trial court had discretion to find that dogs and cats are not similar animals in the "common understanding." VRP (Nov. 9, 2020) at 27. The State responded that the plain language of former RCW 16.52.011(2)(q) did not allow the trial court any discretion. The trial court noted that it would have allowed Doll to keep his dog if it had discretion but stated, "I'm constrained by the law and the ordinary meaning and the statutory definition of the meaning of those terms." Id. at 28. The trial court informed Doll that he would need to find another home for his dog.
Doll appeals his conviction and sentence. He did not assign error to any of the trial court's findings of fact. Doll seeks reversal of his conviction for first degree animal cruelty or, in the alternative, asks this court to strike the prohibition on owning similar animals from his judgment and sentence.
Doll argues that we should reverse his conviction for first degree animal cruelty because the State did not prove that his act of shooting the cat was not "'authorized in law,'" which he claims is an essential element of first degree animal cruelty. Br. of Appellant at 11. Without challenging the trial court's findings of fact, Doll asserts that the State "did not prove that Mr. Doll intentionally shot the cat." Id. And he claims the State "offered no evidence of when the infliction of injury on an animal is authorized by law." Id. at 11-12.
To determine the elements of first degree animal cruelty, we begin by considering the plain language of the statute establishing the crime. First degree animal cruelty occurs when a person "except as authorized in law . . . intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering or while manifesting an extreme indifference to life," or forces a minor to do so. RCW 16.52.205(1).
In general, the animal cruelty laws are not intended to interfere with "'game laws,'" the right to kill animals for food, or other limited exceptions. RCW 16.52.180. At the time of Doll's offense, RCW 16.52.185 and former RCW 16.52.205(6) (2015) identified further circumstances that were ...
To continue reading
Request your trial