In this case of consolidated appeals of denial of motions to quash their bind-overs to Eaton Circuit Court on charges of owning a dangerous animal, People v Ridge, No. 333790 and People v Olney, No. 333791, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of an order quashing the bind-overs.
FACTS:
Defendants
Daniel Ridge and Debra Olney are married. At the time of the incident, they
owned two dogs. The dog at issue was a "possible pit-bull, Shar-Pei
mix" named Roscoe. On September 10, 2015, Jill Flietstra, employee of
Scott’s Lawn Care, was spraying the yard next door to the defendants. Both dogs
were out in their yard, separated by a chain link fence. Flietstra was spraying
the yard when Roscoe got partially under the fence and grabbed her boot. The
dog pulled off her boot, came under the fence and attacked her. The neighbors
called 911. The police arrived, yelled at the dog who then released Flietstra.
When Roscoe turned on the officer, he was shot and killed.
Neighbors
testified that Roscoe barked and attacked the tires of their lawnmowers and
that the dogs would bark, jump, and bite the fence. Generally, the neighbors
avoided the dogs and were afraid of them.
Ridge
and Olney were charged under MCL 287.323(2) which provides that “if an animal
that meets the definition of a dangerous animal MCL 287.321(a) attacks a person
and causes serious injury other than death,” the owner is guilty of a 4-year
felony. A dangerous animal is defined as “a dog or other animal that bites or
attacks a person,…”
Analysis:
The
court looked to People v Janes, 302 Mich App 34 (2013), for
clarification of the statute. Judge MJ Kelly wrote: “the Legislature’s decision
to limit an owner’s liability to situations in which an animal ‘that meets’ the
definition of a dangerous animal ‘attacks’ a person means that the prosecution
must prove, in relevant part, that the animal has previously bitten or attacked
a person.” Janes, 302 Mich App at 50. To sustain a conviction under
the statute, the prosecution must prove that:
- The defendants owned or harbored a dog or other
animal,
- The dog or other animal met the statutory definition
of a dangerous animal before the incident at issue,
- The defendants knew that the dog or other animal met
the definition of a dangerous animal, and
- The animal attacked a person and caused serious
injury other than death.
The court concluded that the Prosecution didn’t introduce any evidence to prove
that Roscoe was a “dangerous animal” as defined by the statute. Nor was
evidence presented to show that the defendants owned a dangerous animal at the
time of the attack and that they knew that the animal was dangerous within the
meaning of the statute.
In
other words, Roscoe had never bitten a person prior to the incident, therefore,
he didn’t fit the statutory definition of a dangerous animal. And, the
defendants did not know the animal was dangerous since he didn’t fit the
definition.
Prosecution
argued that whether the dog was a “dangerous animal” was a question for the
jury. The court disagreed: “Where the decision entails a question of statutory
interpretation, whether the alleged conduct falls within the scope of a penal
statute, the issue is question of law….”
The
case was reversed and remanded for entry of an order quashing the bind-over.
Labels: appeals, appellate advocacy, Appellate Counsel, dog, dog attack, Eaton County, MCL 287.323(2), Michigan, michigan court of appeals, People v Olney, People v Ridge
