Episode 76

full
Published on:

29th Jan 2025

Ep. 76 All Cats Matter: Ohio Supreme Court Decision in State v Alonzo Kyles

Last year, a case came before the Ohio Supreme Court that challenged the legal status of dogs and cats as companion animals based on being "kept". Dr. G's guests, Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutors Tasha Forchione and Sarah Hutnik, will take you through the entire process, from the initial guilty verdict to the court of appeals, and ultimately their work presenting this case at the Ohio Supreme Court. This case was important beyond justice for this cat and accountability for Mr. Kyles. You will hear about other cases that were directly impacted by the Supreme Court's decision.

Ohio is taking steps forward in the protection of animals, and we need to keep the momentum going. We hope stories like this encourage humane officers, law enforcement, and prosecutors to enforce the laws and hold criminals accountable for their actions. We need justice for animals and safety for our communities.

Help us by liking, rating, and sharing! Together we can make a difference for animals and our communities.

Transcript
DrG:

Hi and welcome to the Animal Welfare Junction.

2

:

This is your host Dr.

3

:

G and our music is written

and produced by Mike Sullivan.

4

:

Today I'm super excited to bring you this

case, Supreme Court versus Alonzo Kyles.

5

:

So first let me introduce you to

our guests, Assistant Prosecutors at

6

:

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office.

7

:

We have Tasha Forchione and Sarah Hutnik.

8

:

Welcome to the Junction.

9

:

Let's start, uh, Tasha, can you

introduce yourself and let us know what

10

:

brought you to where you are today?

11

:

Tasha Forchione: We're both so

happy to be here representing our

12

:

office, , talking about the case,

Sarah and I are both assistant

13

:

prosecutors in the appeals unit of the

Cuyahoga County prosecutor's office.

14

:

Um, I have been in this unit since

:

15

:

And prior to that, I was a

city prosecutor, uh, for the

16

:

city of Canton since 2010.

17

:

So I have been an assistant prosecutor for

a pretty long time and I do love my job.

18

:

And this is, this case is one of

the reasons why I love my job.

19

:

DrG: Excellent.

20

:

Do you do a lot of animal related cases

or is this like your, you know, is it not

21

:

very frequent that you do animal related?

22

:

Tasha Forchione: We work on animal

related cases every now and then.

23

:

Um, our involvement in them,

what comes up more often is not

24

:

appeals but search warrants.

25

:

Um, we often do search warrants where

we're investigating animal cruelty and

26

:

we want to go into a residence typically

to, either get an animal out or get

27

:

evidence of the crime when we think

there's probable cause for the crime.

28

:

DrG: So how about you, Sarah?

29

:

What's your background and what

brought you to your position today?

30

:

Sarah Hutnik: Well, first of all,

thank you so much for having us.

31

:

Uh, as Tasha said, we are, we

are very happy to be here today

32

:

and to talk about Alonzo Kyles.

33

:

Um, I started as an assistant

prosecuting attorney, uh, back

34

:

in 2017 in Montgomery County.

35

:

Um, I was in their appeals division

for the majority of my time there.

36

:

Um, and I did a smattering

of other things.

37

:

Um, and then I started in

this office in, um,:

38

:

And shortly thereafter, I joined

the appeals division and I've been

39

:

here for about three years now.

40

:

DrG: I think that some of our audience

members may have heard about this

41

:

case and some of them may not have.

42

:

So, um, does one of you want to

talk about the Alonzo Kyles' case

43

:

and what, what this case is about?

44

:

Tasha Forchione: Well, I can

start by talking about the facts

45

:

and what happened just briefly.

46

:

This case started when Alonzo Kyles.

47

:

Uh, poured bleach in

an apartment building.

48

:

This was happening in

a basement stairwell.

49

:

Kyle didn't like the fact that this

cat was in the building, and instead of

50

:

just simply opening the door to have it

walk out, or, you know, having another

51

:

person remove it from the building, he

just, uh, He proceeded to flood the floor

52

:

with bleach, which ended up trapping

this, what happened, what we learned

53

:

later to be an eight month old kitten.

54

:

So it was trapped in the bleach.

55

:

There was another neighbor in the building

who was alarmed by what was happening,

56

:

both because of the harm to the animal and

because of, you know, the smell of bleach

57

:

was throughout the apartment building.

58

:

He, who called the police.

59

:

That neighbor then, I think,

confronted verbally Mr.

60

:

Kyle, and then Kyle ended up

calling the police as well to

61

:

complain about the neighbor.

62

:

So the police came, Cleveland Police,

um, they came, they found this kitten.

63

:

They were very endearing to the kitten.

64

:

Um, it, it was obvious through

watching body camera video

65

:

that they were animal lovers.

66

:

They were very compassionate.

67

:

They got this kitten out of there,

ended up taking it to veterinary care.

68

:

The cat, it was the West

Park Animal Hospital.

69

:

I hope I'm saying that correctly.

70

:

This kitten ended up staying

there for a couple of days.

71

:

The vet who examined this cat found

that the paw pads were ulcerated in

72

:

that, you know, the cat obviously

was exposed to caustic chemicals

73

:

being exposed to the bleach.

74

:

Alonzo Kyle's was a charged with felony

animal cruelty for causing serious

75

:

physical harm to a companion animal.

76

:

He elected to have a bench trial,

meaning instead of having a jury, he

77

:

tried his case to the trial court.

78

:

The Honorable Nancy Margaret Rousseau

was presiding over that bench trial.

79

:

The vet testified, the police testified,

and at the conclusion of the trial, Mr.

80

:

Kiles argued that this, the state

didn't provide sufficient evidence

81

:

that this was a companion animal.

82

:

And his specific argument, um,

to paraphrase, was that this

83

:

was a stray or a feral cat.

84

:

We, the, the prosecutor's office

did not prove that this was a

85

:

companion animal, meaning that it

was someone's pet that was kept.

86

:

The trial court heard these arguments

and ultimately disagreed with Mr.

87

:

Kyles' attorney.

88

:

She found him guilty of

felony animal cruelty.

89

:

Mr.

90

:

Kyles then appealed to the

8th District Court of Appeals,

91

:

raising two different arguments.

92

:

First, he said that we, at the

prosecutor's office, didn't prove there

93

:

was serious physical harm to the cat.

94

:

And secondly, which is what matters

here, is he argued that we didn't prove

95

:

that this cat was a companion animal.

96

:

And specifically, he argued again that

the state didn't prove the cat was kept.

97

:

The 8th District agreed with Mr.

98

:

Kyles and found that "kept", based on

dictionary definitions, means two things.

99

:

One, to have physical control

over of and to receive care.

100

:

And the Court of Appeals found

that the state didn't prove that

101

:

the kitten in the stairwell was

quote unquote receiving care.

102

:

So they reversed his conviction.

103

:

Sarah Hutnik: in, in the state of Ohio,

uh, anybody who is convicted of a crime

104

:

has the right to appeal that conviction.

105

:

Um, and, uh, that appeal is

automatic and they have the right

106

:

to an attorney at that time.

107

:

Uh, for the first appeal, um,

that would be in this instance,

108

:

the 8th district is the first

appellate court in the process here.

109

:

Uh, then the, um, appellate court

makes a decision one way or the

110

:

other and the parties then have the

option to appeal that case one more

111

:

step to the Ohio Supreme Court.

112

:

Some, um, cases, have a right

to go to the Ohio Supreme Court.

113

:

That's very few.

114

:

The vast majority of cases have to

ask permission from the Ohio Supreme

115

:

Court for them to accept the case that

they'll actually hear it at that point.

116

:

And that was the process that this case

went through is he had the right to an

117

:

appeal at the 8th district, which he did.

118

:

And then we appealed or asked for

permission to appeal this case to the Ohio

119

:

Supreme Court, which they did, did accept.

120

:

DrG: So either.

121

:

So if he had lost his appeal, then

he could have asked for permission

122

:

to go to the Supreme Court as well.

123

:

Sarah Hutnik: Yes, yes.

124

:

So either party.

125

:

And sometimes, uh, both parties

actually appeal for different

126

:

reasons to the Ohio Supreme Court.

127

:

Uh, we call those cross appeals, um, where

both, both parties actually will say,

128

:

you know, I think the appellate court

got this issue wrong, and the other party

129

:

will say, I think they actually got this

issue wrong, and so both of them end up

130

:

at, at the Ohio Supreme Court that way.

131

:

Tasha Forchione: Our office then

appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

132

:

This was a jurisdictional appeal, meaning

this was not automatically going to

133

:

be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court.

134

:

We had to ask the court to

take in the case and review it.

135

:

They agreed, um, and then before

the Ohio Supreme Court was whether

136

:

Ohio's definition of companion

animal will include any dog or

137

:

cat or dogs or cats that are Quote

unquote kept in receiving care.

138

:

So that is what led us to this.

139

:

And this is Long, long explanation.

140

:

Sorry.

141

:

DrG: No, no, no.

142

:

That's fine.

143

:

And this is, uh, Ohio Revised Code 959.

144

:

131.

145

:

Right?

146

:

Like that, um, that says

that it's all dogs and cats.

147

:

But then the problem is that then it

goes to say, regardless of where they

148

:

are kept, and that is where the, the

problem occurs is in that definition.

149

:

Correct.

150

:

Sarah Hutnik: Yes, that's exactly right.

151

:

And this is ultimately what we call

a statutory interpretation question.

152

:

So, and in other words, the defense and

the state disagreed with how this statute

153

:

should be read and what the statute means.

154

:

And, um, the 8th district sided

with defense, uh, which is why

155

:

we ultimately, um, hoped and, and

prevailed at the Ohio Supreme Court.

156

:

Um, and they ultimately agreed with

our interpretation that it was,

157

:

it includes all cats and all dogs.

158

:

Um, and we do not have to

establish whether or not those

159

:

animals were kept or cared for.

160

:

Um, it's just full stop.

161

:

If it's a cat or a dog, uh, any serious

physical harm is then considered a felony.

162

:

DrG: So what is the process as far

as, because, um, you know, I'm part

163

:

of Ohio Animal Advocates, and I

know that we submitted what's called

164

:

an amicus brief, and there were

different organizations that did that.

165

:

So what is the purpose

of these amicus briefs?

166

:

How do, how do they help?

167

:

Tasha Forchione: Well, the amicus

briefs, a lot of people who are not in

168

:

the legal field might be more familiar

with the term "friend of the court".

169

:

Um, so they're, amicus are not a

party to the case, but they are coming

170

:

on to lend support to one of the

parties or even sometimes they come

171

:

in to just clarify certain issues.

172

:

So a lot of times you'll see in the

173

:

U.

174

:

S.

175

:

Supreme Court, um, historians

or professors who will not even

176

:

be supporting a party, but just

they want to educate the court.

177

:

Here, um, our office had, there were

amicus who were supporting our position.

178

:

And so we, after we had filed this case

and the issue was accepted by the court,

179

:

we started seeking out support for our

position because we had anticipated

180

:

that there would be a lot of support

for our position, which there was.

181

:

We reached out to Vicki Diesner.

182

:

I hope I'm saying her name

correctly, from Ohio Animal

183

:

Advocates, and she was amazing.

184

:

She put us in touch with other

organizations locally, throughout,

185

:

and throughout the whole state,

and different people, so it just

186

:

spread like a web from there.

187

:

Um, getting in touch with all of the

different organizations who want to

188

:

protect animals within the state.

189

:

Um, we also separately reached out to

the Animal Legal Defense Fund , for

190

:

national support, and we were grateful

to have their support as well.

191

:

Um, so they have to follow

our briefing schedule.

192

:

Which they did.

193

:

So we file a brief and then the

amicus get to file a brief as well.

194

:

We were extremely fortunate to have

four amicus briefs in, in this case.

195

:

All giving varying perspectives and

educating the court about not only

196

:

the way in which the law should

be read, but the way in which cats

197

:

and dogs interact in the world.

198

:

So we were, you know, we were grateful

to have their support and I think that

199

:

having that support demonstrated to the

court how the public feels and how, uh,

200

:

how the public felt about this case.

201

:

Sarah Hutnik: I think because

sometimes our jobs are as lawyers,

202

:

and as I stated, this was a

statutory interpretation question,

203

:

which can be, you know, rather dry.

204

:

When you focus on, which is our job,

uh, arguing the law specifically,

205

:

you can lose sight of the

importance of the overall picture.

206

:

And I think we were very fortunate in

that we were able to get such great,

207

:

um, amicus briefs because I think

they really brought home The, the

208

:

whole picture and why this matters.

209

:

Uh, and, uh, you know, it's not just

this dry legal argument, but this

210

:

does have very real ramifications.

211

:

in how we approach animal

cruelty in the state.

212

:

DrG: Yeah, I was going to say

when, you know, as a member of Ohio

213

:

Animal Advocates, I was given the

honor to write a part of our brief.

214

:

Um, and, and it was great because my

position was as a veterinarian, right?

215

:

Which is not the same position

as some of the other members.

216

:

The other members are looking

at it from a legal standpoint.

217

:

And I'm in a unique position because I

was at that point, I was a master's of

218

:

studies in law from Lewis and Clark.

219

:

So I have a little bit of a law

background, but everything else is

220

:

from an animal background, right?

221

:

So as a veterinarian, my position is if

you bring me a cat, I'm going to treat

222

:

it the same, whether it's, you know, Mrs.

223

:

Smith's cat, or if it's a

cat that's brought in a trap,

224

:

a cat is a cat is a cat.

225

:

So, as a companion animal, it's the

same, no matter, no matter which one.

226

:

So, our, our amicus had, had three

different perspectives of what kept me,

227

:

meant, and how, also in my eyes, it was

meant to be inclusive, not exclusive.

228

:

So You know, different ways.

229

:

It was a great way of seeing, you

know, you guys are I saw the Supreme

230

:

Supreme Court video and you're given a

really short period of time to explain

231

:

everything that you have to to explain,

whereas we're able to write everything

232

:

down and they can sit down and read

through all of these perspectives and

233

:

then put everything together and see

all of these different points of views

234

:

in order to come up with a conclusion.

235

:

Tasha Forchione: We kind of relevant to

that point, one of the concerns that we

236

:

had from the very beginning, even the

trial court had from the very beginning,

237

:

was that you never really could tell

whether a cat is a pet, stray, feral.

238

:

So, the trial court at one point,

um, when it was listening to the

239

:

arguments at the very beginning,

was like, how will you ever know?

240

:

You can't ever know.

241

:

And that was one of our concerns from

the get go, is cats, you know, To go from

242

:

being a pet to out in the world and and

eventually go to feral and then come back

243

:

again, so We were concerned that there

would be animals out there who could be

244

:

pets, or could be, we don't know, we don't

know what they are, and so they could

245

:

go unprotected, and that was, I think

the amicus briefs did a very nice job of

246

:

explaining that piece of the argument.

247

:

Sarah Hutnik: Yeah, and I agree with

that, and, you know, we have page limits.

248

:

Uh, in, in how much we can write for the

court, and that's why it was so important

249

:

to have these four briefs in support of

ours is, you know, we had to focus on, um,

250

:

the statutory interpretation portion, and

just given our page limits, we couldn't

251

:

necessarily look into this subject

matter with the depth that it necessarily

252

:

requires, and the level of educating

that we needed to do With the court, you

253

:

know, these aren't necessarily typical

problems that the court sees all the time.

254

:

Um, they don't take in a ton of

animal abuse, uh, litigation.

255

:

So it's not a common issue that they

would have a, you know, base level

256

:

of understanding on and, uh, so a

big part of our job is to inform

257

:

the court about the whole picture.

258

:

And I think that's why our amicus briefs

just did such a good job of covering the

259

:

things that we simply would never have

been able to do with just our own brief.

260

:

DrG: So you go up there and

you are presenting your case.

261

:

So how did that whole thing play

out as you are, are presenting

262

:

in front of the Supreme Court?.

263

:

Tasha Forchione: Even before we got

to the Supreme Court, we had to decide

264

:

how we wanted to divide our time.

265

:

We can share our time with amicus, and

that was a really difficult question

266

:

going into it, because we had so much

support, and in an ideal world, we

267

:

would want every single amicus, a

representative from every one of them

268

:

to be able to speak, but we only get 15

minutes, um, of oral argument time, and

269

:

it was just going to be too difficult to

spread it, so we used all of the time.

270

:

During the oral argument, the court

was focused on the definition of kept,

271

:

and Justice Fischer in particular asked

a lot of questions about, you know,

272

:

how would we define kept, how would

we define it, how did the Court of

273

:

Appeals define it, um, and our office's

position all along was that we don't.

274

:

You know, we don't think we need to

define kept it's not a requirement.

275

:

We don't have to prove it So it was a

little difficult at the oral argument

276

:

discussing that because they the court

wants to hear all perspectives They

277

:

just don't want us to shut it down

and say, no, we don't have to do that.

278

:

So

279

:

What does the word kept mean?

280

:

Let's cut to the chase.

281

:

If I could step back one, your honor,

the state doesn't define kept because

282

:

we don't think we have to prove

kept as a prerequisite for a dog

283

:

or a cat to be a companion animal.

284

:

But the 8th District Court of

Appeals define kept as under

285

:

physical control or receiving care.

286

:

One of the problems in this case,

particularly identified by the

287

:

amicus, is that the Court of Appeals

didn't apply under physical control.

288

:

It only applied the second part of their

definition, which was receipt of care.

289

:

And there's a lot of problems with that.

290

:

We're asking Well, if those, if the Court

of Appeals definition has problems and

291

:

the statute doesn't define kept, then

how can we determine do we just skip

292

:

the word and just say any cat and dog.

293

:

Any cat or dog?

294

:

Yes, Your Honor.

295

:

Okay.

296

:

Any dog or cat period.

297

:

Full stop is a companion animal.

298

:

Why didn't they just

say that in the statute?

299

:

Then they could have, but they didn't.

300

:

They didn't.

301

:

Tasha Forchione: the oral argument discuss

a lot of the statutory interpretation.

302

:

What does this text say?

303

:

What does this text mean?

304

:

Um, what is the context of the text?

305

:

So

306

:

ultimately.

307

:

After the oral argument, there was,

I was left with the impression that

308

:

the court might find a requirement

for kept, um, just based on the

309

:

questions, but we know based on the

outcome, that's not what happened.

310

:

Sarah Hutnik: I actually had a

different perspective than Tasha.

311

:

I think because Tasha argued, uh, and

I was essentially, you know, helping

312

:

her and keeping notes and I got to

really watch Um, the justices and how

313

:

they were responding to her answers.

314

:

And then also to the opposing

council, uh, and their answers.

315

:

Um, I, I was actually quite hopeful

when we were done with the argument.

316

:

I, I didn't.

317

:

sense any hostility from

any of the questioning.

318

:

They were tough questions, but I didn't

get the feeling of hostility that

319

:

sometimes you can get, uh, when you,

when you can tell that the justice

320

:

is not on your side and is really

trying to poke holes in your argument.

321

:

Uh, I, I wasn't sensing that so much

as, um, challenging to see how far

322

:

they could push the argument before

it sort of, uh, no longer works.

323

:

And, um, so that, that was kind of what

I was picking up on, and, and I was, I

324

:

was a little more hopeful than Tasha was.

325

:

DrG: Yeah, and I saw that as well.

326

:

And even from what you're saying,

I saw that more when, when the

327

:

defense was speaking, I saw that,

that they were, they were almost

328

:

not buying his arguments, right?

329

:

Especially when he started going on that,

on that whole spiel about vegetables and

330

:

saying about the vegetables being cooked.

331

:

And I kept thinking, What you're

saying is that when you cook a

332

:

vegetable, it stops being a vegetable?

333

:

Because you're saying that when

an animal is not being kept, it

334

:

stops being a companion animal.

335

:

And, you know, it's like,

it doesn't make sense.

336

:

Because, you know, what he's trying

to say It actually proves you guys's

337

:

point, you know, and and I think that

as they kept asking him questions They

338

:

were trying to make him see that what

he was saying was not making sense.

339

:

So So yeah, I at the very beginning

as they kept as they kept talking

340

:

about kept kept kept I was like get

off it like stop asking about it.

341

:

Like it doesn't matter It's

inclusive, not exclusive.

342

:

But, but yeah, it, I, I agree with

you that it did not seem like they

343

:

were being aggressive about it.

344

:

They were just trying to, you know,

make it understood because it is

345

:

unfortunate the way that they used it.

346

:

I, I do believe that it was used in an

inclusive matter, and I think that they

347

:

used it inclusively to include pet stores.

348

:

I, I think that they used it to

include pet stores saying regardless

349

:

of where they are kept in, including

pet stores, that the kept part

350

:

was because of the pet store bit.

351

:

And it is very unfortunate

that they did it that way.

352

:

But, you know, it is what it is.

353

:

Um, but thankfully they saw through

the intent of the law and not just, you

354

:

know, the way that it, that it is said.

355

:

Um, part, part of it, as you brought up

is the fact about, you know, there are

356

:

people that have cats that are outside.

357

:

Well, if my cat that is kept gets

out of the house and ends up in

358

:

somebody else's yard and they

kill it, they killed a kept cat.

359

:

That cat didn't stop being kept

because it got out of my house.

360

:

It's still kept.

361

:

It just happened to be outside.

362

:

So somebody can't kill a cat just

because they found it outside, and

363

:

they made the assumption that it's

kept, that it's unkept, right?

364

:

Like, a companion animal

is a companion animal.

365

:

It's a domestic animal.

366

:

Sarah Hutnik: And I think, and Tasha,

correct me if I'm wrong, but in the

367

:

legislative notes pertaining to this

law, so when the legislature is,

368

:

Um, considering a law change in this

instance, Goddard's Law, they have

369

:

a lot of testimony from, you know,

victims of crime, um, people through

370

:

the industry, veterinarians and, um,

and the like, and the APL and things

371

:

like that, uh, just to listen to them

about, you know, How to then work the

372

:

statute and then also like what they

want the statute to ultimately do.

373

:

And one of the stories that was told

to the legislature was very similar

374

:

to your example and that it was a dog.

375

:

I can't recall, and maybe Tasha, you

remember, uh, either ran away or was

376

:

just an outside dog, um, but a neighbor,

um, or somebody nearby had actually

377

:

captured the dog and ended up killing

the dog, taking its collar, and then

378

:

burying him, um, burying the dog.

379

:

And, uh, you know, that raised a lot

of questions that, that you just said

380

:

was, obviously this dog was kept and

cared for, but if, at the time that they

381

:

discovered the animal's remains, it would

not have had a collar and depending on

382

:

the amount of time, you might not have

been able to see, uh, anything, um, that

383

:

would support the fact that the dog was

necessarily cared for or kept, I mean,

384

:

after a certain point that, that kind

of evidence would not be discoverable.

385

:

So it's sort of highlight highlighted

to the legislature, um, how this could

386

:

break down in, uh, animals and In their

sort of fluid nature of whether they just

387

:

kind of wander off on their own, or they

are in fact taken, and that evidence is

388

:

disposed of in that instance of this dog.

389

:

Tasha Forchione: Yes.

390

:

And so Samson, that was Samson's story.

391

:

It was a family that testified

before the state legislator.

392

:

Um, and I think getting back to the,

why we're even talking about KEPT and

393

:

how we get to the vegetables and even

in the pet store is, This was, this

394

:

case is all surrounding the definition

of companion animal and the, so the,

395

:

and it's, the definition is the full

definition of companion animal is any

396

:

animal kept inside a residential dwelling,

comma, and any dog or cat, regardless

397

:

of where it is kept, And what you

alluded to, including a pet store, so

398

:

all of, we know a lot from all of this.

399

:

We know that dogs and cats are,

were separated out specifically

400

:

from any other animal.

401

:

Um, and then we know that the way in

which this is written, is because the

402

:

legislator was concerned about the places

in which these type of animals are found.

403

:

You mentioned the pet stores.

404

:

There's legislation in Ohio regulating

pet stores because of horrific incidents

405

:

that have happened at pet stores.

406

:

And that's kind of how our animal cruelty

laws have evolved over time in response to

407

:

these incidents that cause public outcry.

408

:

So there's puppy mill puppies that

end up in pet stores and these poor

409

:

animals are suffering all these harms.

410

:

So now the legislator is on alert

that they have to address pet stores.

411

:

There's kennels.

412

:

There's other parts of the

law that talk about kennels.

413

:

And that's in response, that was

Nitro's law in response to a poor little

414

:

dog who ended up dying at a kennel.

415

:

And the reason why we talk about

all of these locations is that's

416

:

the why the reason why we say

the law was written this way.

417

:

It's any dog or cat, regardless

of where it is kept, meaning

418

:

it doesn't matter where it is.

419

:

It's any dog or cat.

420

:

Mr.

421

:

Kyles' attorney, that's why he

was using the vegetables example.

422

:

He likens this to this example.

423

:

" Kyles' Attorney: going back to

the example I used in the brief,

424

:

dinner tonight will be vegetables

regardless of how they are cooked.

425

:

We wouldn't write that.

426

:

If we didn't expect to

cook the vegetables.

427

:

Right.

428

:

So, so, so, there's a presupposition

that vegetables are going to be cooked.

429

:

"

Tasha Forchione: Dinner tonight will be vegetables, regardless

430

:

of how they are cooked.

431

:

And his argument was, well,

that implies that the vegetables

432

:

are going to be cooked.

433

:

On our side, we say, no, that just

means dinner tonight will be vegetables.

434

:

without regard to how they are cooked.

435

:

And why that applies to this animal

example is, it's any dog or cat

436

:

without regard to where it is kept.

437

:

It doesn't, it's not implied

that it must be kept.

438

:

So that's kind of how we get down

the vegetable, vegetable road.

439

:

Justice Dewine: That's kind

of the rub here, right?

440

:

I mean, uh, the example you

gave about, what was it?

441

:

Uh, what was it?

442

:

Dinner tonight will be vegetables

regardless of how they are cooked.

443

:

Right, and clearly someone

listening to that sentence said,

444

:

thinks that, expects vegetables.

445

:

You expect that.

446

:

But, uh, I think the question really

is, You know, for our purposes is, if

447

:

you said to someone dinner tonight will

be vegetables regardless of how they're

448

:

cooked and you serve them raw celery,

would they think you lied to them?

449

:

And I'm not sure that, I'm not

sure that they would think that.

450

:

Tasha Forchione: And, and the whole,

the long and short of it is that the

451

:

reason why it's in there is that we

don't care where these animals are.

452

:

All dog or cats are protected.

453

:

DrG: So the Supreme Court agreed

that all dogs and cats are protected.

454

:

Was this a unanimous decision?

455

:

Sarah Hutnik: Yes.

456

:

DrG: And then after that happened,

then what happened to the case?

457

:

Sarah Hutnik: So after, uh, the

Ohio Supreme Court determined that

458

:

the 8th District's analysis of the

statute was incorrect, um, it does

459

:

what's called reverse and remand.

460

:

So it reversed this case

back to the 8th District.

461

:

And remanded it to, um, essentially say

that we had met our burden and that we

462

:

presented enough evidence to support,

uh, a conviction, uh, sufficiency

463

:

of the evidence is what we call it.

464

:

And, um, ultimately then the 8th district

issued a ruling in agreement with that.

465

:

And then also, as an aside, They

had a second issue to resolve, which

466

:

was the serious physical harm, uh,

portion, in which they did find that

467

:

the bleach and the alterations to the

cat's paws that the state presented

468

:

also supported that serious physical

harm did occur in this instance.

469

:

So that's a long way of saying, um, that

Alonzo Kyles' conviction was upheld,

470

:

And his, his sentence then proceeded.

471

:

DrG: What was he charged with

and what was the outcome of it?

472

:

Tasha Forchione: He, yeah, he

was just charged with, um, animal

473

:

cruelty under the, it's 959.

474

:

131C, which is the felony animal

cruelty law, so causing serious

475

:

physical harm to a companion animal.

476

:

It's a felony of the fifth degree.

477

:

Um, he was convicted of that at the trial

court and so then ultimately upheld and,

478

:

um, he did do a prison term for this.

479

:

Sarah Hutnik: I do recall that

he, um, is going to be required to

480

:

register on the animal abuse registry.

481

:

Tasha Forchione: So on his sentencing,

he, this is from his journal entry,

482

:

he's prohibited from owning or

caring for any companion animals

483

:

indefinitely pursuant to ORC 959.

484

:

99E6A.

485

:

Um, and as Sarah mentioned, that he is

required to register with the Sheriff's

486

:

Office, for the Animal Abuse Registry.

487

:

DrG: And he served nine months?

488

:

Tasha Forchione: By the time this

appeal went to the Supreme Court,

489

:

I, he had served his sentence.

490

:

DrG: Okay, which was the nine months?

491

:

Tasha Forchione: Nine months.

492

:

Yes.

493

:

DrG: And I think that this is

an important case because this

494

:

is a LINK related case, right?

495

:

Because I believe it was back in 2017.

496

:

He had been charged with child

endangerment for physical

497

:

abuse of his girlfriend's son.

498

:

Tasha Forchione: He was ultimately

convicted of felony, um, felony

499

:

child endangering, um, for a

really serious incident with

500

:

his, stepson or girlfriend's child.

501

:

Um, we did let this, we did include

some of that information in our

502

:

briefing because that was information

that was publicly available through

503

:

a news article about the offense.

504

:

Um, the allegation in that case was that

Kyles had struck this child with a pole.

505

:

Um, so that, that was certainly

rising to the level of felony

506

:

level child endangering.

507

:

We briefed, uh, what you're referring

to as the link, um, that being the

508

:

connection between animal abuse and abuse

of humans, we argued consistent with a

509

:

lot of research, um, that Abuse of animals

is predictive and sometimes co occurring

510

:

with the abuse of humans, particularly

in interpersonal relationships.

511

:

Um, we see that quite often.

512

:

We're still seeing it in cases that we

have now, and that was one thing, although

513

:

it wasn't outcome determinative in this

case, um, because the way in which the

514

:

statute was written, we did provide the

court with a lot of background about these

515

:

laws and the state legislator at the time,

legislator at the time of changing these

516

:

laws and defining companion animal took a

lot of testimony from experts and people

517

:

in the fields about the link and about

the concern for the way in which people

518

:

who abuse animals also interact and cause

violence to people in the community.

519

:

DrG: We are seeing that, that there

is an importance in prosecuting cases

520

:

of animal abuse because first, these

animals deserve to, to get justice.

521

:

But also in looking for justice for these

animals, we are making communities safer.

522

:

Now, in this case, also, is, uh,

It's a very important decision by

523

:

the Supreme Court because, I mean,

it establishes that the end, that

524

:

this cat, you know, that all cats are

companion animals in the eyes of the law.

525

:

And I recently was involved in

another case in Butler County that

526

:

this case was very important for.

527

:

And this is the case in Butler County

of a man named Zhean Bai that physically

528

:

abused the cat and they were trying to

use this case to make his case go away.

529

:

Um, are you, you're, you're

familiar with the, with this case?

530

:

Tasha Forchione: Yes.

531

:

DrG: So recently I was asked to be

involved as a forensic veterinarian in

532

:

the case of Zhean Bai in Butler County.

533

:

So, uh, I don't want to go into a lot

of detail because there's going to be

534

:

a podcast on this case, but basically

what happened here is that this man, uh,

535

:

chased a cat up a flight of stairs and

took this defenseless cat, put it in a

536

:

bag and slammed it against the floor.

537

:

Um, and caused injury bad enough

that the cat had to be euthanized.

538

:

Um, the defense alleged that this

cat was not kept, and because

539

:

this cat was not kept, that he

could not be charged as a felony.

540

:

Um, and the, and the case that they wanted

to use was Alonzo Kyles because the case

541

:

was still being used in the Supreme Court.

542

:

So can you describe how his

defense can use this, uh, as a

543

:

motion to have his case dismissed?

544

:

Tasha Forchione: So while we were

still in the middle of litigating

545

:

Alonzo Kyles at the Ohio Supreme Court,

Sarah and I were trying to keep up

546

:

with instances of animal cruelty in

parts of the state and particularly

547

:

felony animal cruelty indictments.

548

:

So we came across this case, I,

you know, the docket was public.

549

:

So I went on the public docket and

lo and behold, I see a motion to

550

:

dismiss filed by this defendant.

551

:

He was asking the court in Butler

County to dismiss his indictment

552

:

based on the authority of State v.

553

:

Kyles, the 8th district opinion.

554

:

He, like you said, was arguing

that the abused and ultimately,

555

:

um, euthanized cat was not kept.

556

:

And so as a matter of law, he could not

have committed felony animal cruelty.

557

:

So in a nutshell, he was asking the

court in Butler County to dismiss

558

:

his case because he said he couldn't

be found guilty as a matter of law.

559

:

This was obviously

extremely concerning to us.

560

:

Um, so we obviously thought that the

Alonzo Kyles' decision was wrongly decided

561

:

at the 8th District Court of Appeals.

562

:

But then to see that that decision

was being relied upon by litigants

563

:

throughout the state of Ohio to

564

:

evade being Convicted of felony

animal cruelty when indeed it was

565

:

felony animal cruelty, and these

were extremely serious incidents that

566

:

should be punished at the felony level.

567

:

Um, it was concerning to say the least.

568

:

DrG: Yes, and thankfully, um, you know,

again, there's going to be a podcast and

569

:

please listen to it when it comes out.

570

:

But, um, You know, this, this,

uh, thankfully, they waited

571

:

until the Supreme Court decision.

572

:

They extended it.

573

:

And then once the Supreme

Court decision occurred, they

574

:

decided to not allow his motion.

575

:

And then that case did go to trial.

576

:

Um, or at least they, it did proceed.

577

:

Um, and eventually he

did take a, take a plea.

578

:

So, um, the, this case going to the

Supreme Court and this decision has had

579

:

an incredible impact and it could have

gone way wrong had the Supreme Court not

580

:

found in favor of, of cats, you know,

not all cats being companion animals.

581

:

So, you know, I, I want to thank you

both for all the work that, that you did.

582

:

And I want to thank everybody who

who submitted the these amicus briefs

583

:

for the work that they did, because

I think this was a team effort.

584

:

You know, everybody put forth all this

work to present a really strong case and

585

:

demonstrate the again, the intent of the

law, what, what, everything, what, what

586

:

it was meant to do on how it was supposed

to protect all dogs and cats, not just the

587

:

ones that live inside of inside of a home.

588

:

Sarah Hutnik: Thank you for your

help on on this issue as well.

589

:

Um, you know, like, like we said before,

it, the amicus briefs really did help,

590

:

um, educate the court as to this issue.

591

:

Um, and, and I think because of that,

we got a very successful result.

592

:

Tasha Forchione: Yeah,

I couldn't agree more.

593

:

This was a total team effort.

594

:

I'm so grateful for all of the individuals

and organizations who lent their

595

:

time because this is time intensive.

596

:

the, you know, everyone in these

organizations is committed to the

597

:

protection of animals and they have

all of these different and time

598

:

consuming endeavors related to that.

599

:

But they took time out of their schedules

and their commitments to work on this.

600

:

And they lent their various expertise,

be it medical, legal policy and It, in

601

:

the end result, was providing the court

with a well rounded picture of what

602

:

the law says, what the law means, and,

you know, what ultimately was the best

603

:

policy outcome for the state of Ohio.

604

:

Sarah Hutnik: And, and, uh, aside from the

Bai case that you've mentioned, there have

605

:

already been, um, a couple of cases that

have been impacted by this Kyles case.

606

:

Um, Tasha and I found

a case called State v.

607

:

Rhonda Murphy in which, uh,

she was charged with multiple

608

:

counts of, um, abuse of companion

animals, dogs in this instance.

609

:

And, uh, on appeal, she was arguing that

her sentence should not essentially have

610

:

been as long as it was, um, given that

no humans were impacted by her actions.

611

:

And in the, uh, Try or the

appellate court's decision.

612

:

They actually cited to Alonzo Kyle's

and highlighted the fact that Um, dogs

613

:

and cats, all dogs and cats have a

higher protection and just because

614

:

humans weren't, uh, impacted by

her actions doesn't mean her, uh,

615

:

larger sentence was not appropriate.

616

:

So, you know, in that case, that, you

know, I think that's a really great

617

:

result to, that has already, um, come

about because of the Kyles' case.

618

:

Uh, there's also a case out

of, uh, Montgomery County.

619

:

Where an individual was fleeing

from police, driving a vehicle.

620

:

Uh, he failed to comply with

police orders and, um, as he was

621

:

driving, he hit and killed a cat.

622

:

Uh, and he has been indicted

on, um, two felony counts.

623

:

One, a failure to comply

with police orders.

624

:

But then also, uh, he's

actually being charged with,

625

:

uh, abuse of a companion animal.

626

:

So that, that case is at the very

early stages, but I think it does

627

:

show that the state of Ohio and

prosecutors and the courts have

628

:

recognized that dogs and cats, all dogs

and cats, have a higher protection,

629

:

um, than, than perhaps we initially

believed, uh, just a short year ago.

630

:

DrG: That is amazing.

631

:

I mean, it's, it's great to see the

state of Ohio taking the stand in

632

:

protection of animals and, you know,

looking at the Animal Legal Defense Fund

633

:

standings, how Ohio was so low on the

rankings and how we've been moving up.

634

:

I'm looking forward to

just continuing to move up.

635

:

Like I think that we're making great

strides and it's showing from the,

636

:

from the ways that the laws are being

written and then how little by little

637

:

the courts are upholding these laws.

638

:

So I think that we're moving the right

direction and I'm hoping to just keep

639

:

seeing this, this push moving forward.

640

:

Tasha Forchione: I mean, I think the

people of Ohio, the constituents have,

641

:

have made their voices very clear that

they want animals to be protected.

642

:

And that is an extremely high priority

for, um, for people in the state and

643

:

they'll be, I'm sure that they'll be

happy to see us move up in the rankings.

644

:

DrG: Great.

645

:

Well, thank you so much for

being part of this conversation.

646

:

Again, thank you so much for

everything that you did, not just

647

:

for this cat, but for all dogs

and cats in the state of Ohio.

648

:

I really appreciate you

taking the time to be here.

649

:

And for everybody who's

listening, thank you for listening

650

:

and thank you for caring.

651

:

Sarah Hutnik: Thank

652

:

DrG: you.

All Episodes Previous Episode

Listen for free

Show artwork for The Animal Welfare Junction

About the Podcast

The Animal Welfare Junction
Veterinary Forensics
The Animal Welfare Junction is a podcast developed to bring awareness to different topics in animal welfare. The host, Michelle Gonzalez (Dr. G) is a veterinarian who provides affordable veterinary care in the State of Ohio, and also a Forensic Veterinarian helping with the investigation and prosecution of cases of animal cruelty and neglect.
The topics presented are based on the experiences of Dr. G and our guests and include discussions about real cases, humane projects, and legal issues that affect animals and the community. Due to the nature of the discussion, listener discretion is advised as some topics may be too strong for some listeners.

About your host

Profile picture for Alba Gonzalez

Alba Gonzalez

Michelle González (DrG) was born and raised in Puerto Rico. Her passion growing up was to become a veterinarian. She obtained a B.S. in Zoology at Michigan State University and the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree at The Ohio State University, followed by a 1-yr Internship in Medicine, Surgery, Emergency and Critical Care at the University of Missouri-Columbia. In 2006 she founded the Rascal Unit, a mobile clinic offering accesible and affordable sterilization, and wellness services throughout the State of Ohio.
Dr. G is involved in many aspects of companion veterinary medicine including education, shelter assistance and help to animals that are victims of cruelty and neglect.
DrG completed a Master’s degree in Veterinary Forensics from the University of Florida and a Master’s in Forensic Psychology from Southern New Hampshire University. She is currently enrolled at the University of Florida Forensic Science program. She assists Humane organizations and animal control officers in the investigation, evaluation, and prosecution of cases of animal cruelty and neglect.