State v. Hanson, 90,372.

• Decision Date: 14 May 2004
• Docket Number: No. 90,372.,90,372.
• Citation: 89 P.3d 544,277 Kan. 855
• Parties: STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KEITH HANSON, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

277 Kan. 855

89 P.3d 544

STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KEITH HANSON, Appellant.

No. 90,372.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed May 14, 2004.

Roger D. Struble, of Blackwell, Blackwell & Struble, Chtd., of Salina, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Amy J. Hanley, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Ellen Mitchell, county attorney, and Phill Kline, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

McFARLAND, C.J.:

Keith Hanson appeals his bench trial convictions of three counts of permitting a dangerous animal to be at large (K.S.A. 21-3418). The case was transferred to this court pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).

In his appeal defendant challenges: (1) the admission of certain testimony; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions; and (3) the amount of restitution ordered.

The underlying facts are essentially undisputed. Defendant lives in a rural area and is the owner/custodian of three Staffordshire bull terrier mix dogs which are in the pit bull canine grouping. On November 1, 2002, defendant turned the three dogs loose and they disappeared, as they had done on previous occasions. The dogs went to the Pat Martin residence nearby. A Martin employee observed them attacking the Martin family dog, a Labrador retriever named Max, which they had cornered under the deck. The employee approached the dogs, but became concerned for his own safety by virtue of the violence of the attack. He retreated, but returned with another employee after they had armed themselves with a shovel and a golf club, respectively. As the attacking dogs were approached the second time, they left. The employee testified he could hear the attack 15 to 20 minutes before he went to check out the noise. Max received massive injuries to his rear and abdominal area and was rushed to a veterinarian. Extensive treatment was given over a lengthy period of time, but the injuries proved to be too severe. Max had to be euthanized on January 19, 2003.

K.S.A. 21-3418 provides:

"Permitting a dangerous animal to be at large is the act or omission of the owner or custodian of an animal of dangerous or vicious propensities who, knowing of such propensities, permits or suffers such animal to go at large or keeps such animal without taking ordinary care to restrain it."

For a conviction under the statute, the State must prove: (1) the defendant was the owner or custodian of an animal of dangerous or vicious propensities; (2) the defendant knew of such propensities; (3) the defendant permitted the animal to go at large or kept such animal without taking ordinary care to restrain it; and (4) the act occurred on or about a specific day in a specific Kansas county.

For his first issue, defendant contends the district court erred in admitting testimony of the director of the local animal shelter as to the aggression toward other dogs exhibited by the defendant's dogs while they were impounded at the shelter after the attack herein. Defendant argues such evidence was not relevant. We disagree. The State had the burden of establishing the three dogs had dangerous or vicious propensities. The evidence was admissible, with the weight to be afforded thereto to be determined by the trier of fact.

Next, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. When the sufficiency of the...