Salt Lake Criminal Defense Attorney Utah
Criminal Defense Attorney Stephen Howard
Call Criminal Defense Attorney in Utah
Call Utah Criminal Lawyer
Experienced Criminal Defense Attorneys / Former Prosecutors
Call 801-449-1409 now for help protecting your rights.
Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer Salt Lake City

Criminal Defense Solutions Start HereSM

Finding a Felony Defense LawyerChoosing a Misdemeanor Defense LawyerDrug and Alcohol Crimes Defense LawyerWhite Collar Defense Attorney for Utah ChargesAttorney for Expungements Reductions and PardonsDefendant Constitutional Rights Criminal LawyerBail and Bond Alternatives in UtahReasons for Hope Facing Criminal Charges


Vicious Animal at Large

The following represents one lawyer's poor attempt at humor in legal analysis. If you are facing criminal prosecution, please contact us directly to see how an experienced criminal defense attorney can make a difference in your case. Even misdemeanor charges in Utah can have serious consequences.

Posted September 15, 2017
.

Reading the Law to Avoid Absurdity

A question was raised recently about how the statutory language of Utah Code 76-9-304 should be properly interpreted. The statute purports to establish criminal penalties that may imposed when a vicious animal gets loose or when an animal causes injuries to another animal or to a human. But the statute is drafted in a way that is confusing. The relevant language of the statute is as follows:

Any owner of a vicious animal, knowing its propensities, who willfully allows it to go at large or who keeps it without ordinary care, and any animal, while at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, causes injury to another animal or to any human being who has taken reasonable precaution which the circumstances permitted, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. . . .

Reading the statute as close to literally as possible and with tongue firmly in cheek, one could argue that it establishes two separate crimes.

The first crime applies to "[a]ny owner of a vicious animal [who] know[s] its propensities [and] who willfully allows it to go at large or who keeps it without ordinary care" is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

The second crime is more interesting, and applies to "any animal, [that] while at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, causes injury to another animal or to any human being who has taken reasonable precaution which the circumstances permitted" is also guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

The first is a crime committed by the owner. The second is a crime committed by the animal.

Arguments certainly could be made that the animal's due process rights are violated by prosecuting the animal under this section, as the due process "notice" requirements cannot be met where the animal (presumably) is incapable of reading or understanding the language of the statute. The animal's inability to communicate with the court or with counsel also creates questions on the issue of the required "opportunity to be heard" and basic competency elements. Even with these legal issues, there are still occasional reports of judges who impose capital punishment against an animal who has violated this statute.

But on a more serious note. . . .

Challenging Vague or Ambiguous Statutory Language

Judges normally try to interpret a statute in a way that avoids absurdity. So the analysis above is likely to be rejected by most courts.

The language of Utah Code 76-9-304 leaves something to be desired in terms of clarity and grammar. Laws that are unclear can be challenged as being void for vagueness. In order to successfully challenge a law as being unconstitutionally vague, one must generally demonstrate that the language is so unclear that it does not allow an ordinary person to understand who the law applies to and what conduct is prohibited. Another basis for holding a statute to be unconstitutionally vague is found when a statute is so broadly written that it invites arbitrary enforcement.

A prosecutor facing a vagueness challenge would likely argue that the statute should be read as applying to "[a]ny owner" of two classes of animals. The first class of animals would include "a vicious animal" with propensities known to the owner, that is allowed by the owner to go at large or that is kept by the owner without ordinary care. The second class of animals would include "any animal [whether or not known to be vicious], [that] while at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, causes injury to another animal or to any human being who has taken reasonable precaution which the circumstances permitted." But the "or" in the second class of animals is significant as it seems to further invite arbitrary prosecution.

With the "or" in place, the statute can be read as covering "any owner" of "any animal" that injures another animal "while at large" - regardless of the level of care exercised by the owner and regardless of what or who caused the animal to be at large. Recklessness is the default mens rea requirement when a statute doesn't clearly indicate strict liability and doesn't indicate another mental state requirement. Here, it could be argued that criminal negligence is sufficient where the statute refers to "ordinary care." But it could also be argued that strict liability applies where the legislature drafted the statute to include times when any animal is "not kept with ordinary care" or is simply "at large."

Strict liability in this context is problematic, but there are prosecutors and police officers who seem to believe that strict liability can be appropriately applied to this statute. Under strict liability, if a dog gets out and bites someone, the owner is automatically criminally liable - regardless of why or how the dog got out.

In order for strict liability to apply, the statute needs to clearly indicate a legislative intent to impose strict liability. This doesn't meant that the legislature has to use the words "strict liability." But the intent still has to be clear.

Here, the statute's reference to a standard of "ordinary care" suggests that the legislature is not intending to impose strict liability. But if the "any animal, while at large" language of the statute is read as imposing strict liability, then other problems arise.

Assume that a hypothetical dog is placed by its owner into the backyard, chained securely to a post, with a fence that is tall and strong, and a gate that is closed and locked. Assume next that some bad actor climbs the fence, unchains the dog, lifts the dog over the fence, sets the dog free, and then watches as the dog runs across the street and inflicts fatal injuries on the neighbor's baby.

If the statute is read as imposing strict liability ("any animal, while at large . . . [and] the animal causes the death of a human being") then the dog owner is guilty of a third-degree felony even though there was no volitional act committed by the owner. Not only is there no mens rea, not only is there no actus reus (guilty act), there is no act at all on the part of the owner (other than the act of owning a dog). The problematic acts committed in this hypothetical are committed only by the dog itself and by the unknown bad actor who let the dog out of the fence. Imposing felony liability in this context could implicate substantive due process (fundamental unfairness) concerns.

A More Reasonable Interpretation

The statute could also be read in a way that does not divide the world into two classes of animals ("vicious" animals and "any" animals). This is also a more narrow reading which would punish only owners of vicious animals that actually cause injury.

If the words "and any" are changed to "if that" then the meaning of the statute changes significantly. Here the statute would only impose criminal penalties on a certain class of animal owners ("[a]ny owner of a vicious animal, knowing its propensities, who willfully allows it to go at large, or keeps it without ordinary care") and only if certain conditions are met ("[if that] animal, while at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, causes injury to another animal or to any human being. . . .").

This reading perhaps makes the most sense, because it avoids the substantive due process issues involved with imposing strict liability, it provides a clear class of persons who are governed by the statute, it provides more clear mens rea requirements, and it more clearly sets forth what conduct is prohibited. It also avoids the absurdity of pursuing criminal prosecution against cats and dogs.

Still, a problem remains with the statute because in order to get to this reading of the statute, the words of the statute be changed. If a statute has to be rewritten in order to make sense, there is a problem.

But at least the current language of the statute keeps the door open for constitutional challenges to be made by defense attorneys.

*Note that while many local ordinances relating to animals at large are based on the state code, some of these local ordinances may have been modified in a way that clarifies the ambiguities in the state code. A careful analysis of the specific statutory language must be made prior to mounting a challenge to the statute. The assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney is highly recommended.

Finding a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Utah

Utah Criminal Lawyer in Salt Lake CityCaring for animals is a matter that should be taken seriously. Even ignoring potential criminal penalties, failing to provide an animal with proper care and protection can have serious consequences for the neglected animal, for other animals, and for other people as well.

If you have been contacted by a police officer or other government investigator or if you have been charged with a crime, the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney can be key to ensuring that your rights are protected. Contact us today to see what the right attorney can do for you.


Best Rating
Make a Payment to Your Account
Get Help Now
Name: Email: Phone: Describe your legal needs here:
I accept the disclaimer below.
Disclaimer: No attorney-client relationship is established by the use of this form. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be submitted through this form. By clicking 'submit' I am only requesting that I be contacted for the purpose of obtaining legal services.

This form protected by reCAPTCHA.

  • Selected Victories
  • Criminal Defense AttorneyDismissed - Contractor was charged with theft by deception for allegedly misusing customer funds and failing to complete work that had been agreed upon. A successful motion to quash on legal grounds following the bindover order at preliminary hearing resulted in a complete dismissal of all charges.
  • Drug Crimes Defense Attorney Utah Dismissed - Client facing first-degree felony drug distribution charge and potential life in prison. Charges were based on allegations that client had sold drugs to an undercover police officer, then made a full confession. Successful mitigation work resulted in negotiated offer of misdemeanor plea-in-abeyance and ultimate dismissal of case.
  • Utah 402 Reduction Attorney Felony Reduced - Client with prior felony conviction was granted a 402 reduction to the misdemeanor level over the objection of the prosecutor. Based on information provided to the court in support of the defense motion, the judge ruled in favor of the defense.
  • Utah Burglary Defense Attorney Not Guilty - Client was charged with second-degree felony residential burglary and facing potential prison time. Investigation by the defense revealed multiple witnesses, missed by police and prosecutors, who supported client's claim of innocence. At trial, the jury returned a "not guilty" verdict on all charges.
  • Recent Posts
  • What to Do When Arrested for DUI What should I do if I am arrested for DUI? - Many DUI cases begin as minor traffic stops. But the consequences of a DUI conviction are much more serious than an ordinary traffic citation. If you are pulled over for a suspected DUI, you have specific important constitutional and statutory rights that can protect your. . . .
  • Utah Misdemeanor Attorney Salt Lake Can I handle a Utah misdemeanor from out-of-state? - Even if you do not intend to take your case to trial, a misdemeanor criminal offense in Utah can require multiple court appearances to reach a resolution. If you have been charged with a crime in Utah, but are not a Utah resident, an experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to help you resolve the case without returning to the state. . . .
Best Utah Criminal Defense Strategy

The right criminal defense lawyer can work with you to develop a defense strategy designed to achieve the best results. Hiring a Utah criminal attorney with real courtroom experience and an in-depth understanding of the legal issues involved in defending against a criminal prosecution can help ensure the best...

Strategy »
Salt Lake Criminal Defense Attorney Profile Utah

Defending against a criminal prosecution in Utah is a job that has to be done right the first time. Choosing the right attorney to defend you can be the most important decision you make. Our attorneys have extensive experience handling some of the most serious felony and misdemeanor charges on the books in Utah. No matter what charges you are facing, we can help....

Experience »
Conviction Consequences - Utah Criminal Defense

Even a "minor" misdemeanor carries the potential for jail time and significant fines. The direct penalties and collateral consequences of a felony conviction are even more severe. Understanding these consequences is critical as you make decisions relating to your case. Even in a misdemeanor case, you should not....

Consequences »
Utah Criminal Attorney - Reasons to Hope

An arrest is not a conviction. If you are facing criminal prosecution in Utah, it can feel like your world is collapsing. But there are things you can do right now that can increase your chances of a good outcome. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can help you evaluate the various options available to you and help develop a strategy for success....

Reasons to Hope »
Home | Attorney Profile | Case Results | Criminal Code | FAQ | Legal Resources | Defense Strategy | Contact Us

Serving Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah, Cache, Tooele, Summit, Box Elder, and Wasatch Counties, and all of Utah.

Attorney Stephen Howard practices as part of the Canyons Law Group, LLC and Stephen W. Howard, PC.

Offices in Salt Lake and Davis Counties
560 South 300 East, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
952 S. Main St., Suite A, Layton, UT 84041

Call now to arrange for a confidential initial consultation with an experienced and effective Utah criminal defense lawyer.

In Salt Lake City, call 801-449-1409.
In Davis County, call 801-923-4345.

Stephen W. Howard, PC

The materials in this website are intended for informational purposes only, and are not legal advice. Viewing or responding to materials in this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Read Full Disclaimer.