Author: LegalEase Solutions
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether or not trying to scare away a nuisance flock of geese by driving your car into the flock to scare them away is just cause or excuse?
SHORT ANSWER
The defendant convicted of animal cruelty may find it difficult to prove that the act of driving his car into a nuisance flock of geese to scare them away is just cause or excuse. The defendant has to prove that he had not committed the act intentionally or with a conscious disregard of known risks. Along with just cause or excuse, the absence of intention or conscious disregard of known risks is essential in challenging a conviction for animal cruelty under MCL 750.50b (2).[1]
RESEARCH FINDINGS
For a conviction under MCL 750.50b (2), the prosecution needs “to establish probable cause to believe that defendants willfully (i.e., did something that resulted in torture to the animal), maliciously (i.e., knowing it to be wrong, acted either intentionally or with conscious disregard of known risks), and without just cause or excuse tortured the [animal].” People v Henderson, 282 Mich App 307, 319-20; 765 NW2d 619, 627 (2009).
“Malice has been described an essential element in a conviction for animal cruelty.” People v Fennell, 260 Mich App 261, 269; 677 NW2d 66, 71 (2004) (citing People v Tessmer, 171 Mich 522, 525; 137 NW 214, 215 (1912)). The elements of malice is satisfied when the defendant has “1) committed the act, 2) while knowing it to be wrong, 3) without just cause or excuse, and 4) did it intentionally or 5) with a conscious disregard of known risks to the property of another.” Fennell, supra, 260 Mich App at 270 (citing People v Iehl, 100 Mich App 277, 280; 299 NW2d 46, 47 (1980)).
Adopting the above definition, the Henderson court has held that malice is proved when “the defendant acted either intentionally or with conscious disregard of known risks.” Henderson, supra, 282 Mich App at 316.
Further, it is well established that “the portion of MCL 750.50b (2) relating to killing or torturing an animal is a general intent crime.” Fennell, supra, 260 Mich App at 263. “[A] general intent crime merely requires ‘the intent to perform the physical act itself.’” Id., 260 Mich App at 266 (quoting People v Disimone, 251 Mich App 605, 610; 650 NW2d 436, 439 (2002)).
Moreover, “[t]o establish that a crime has been committed, the prosecution only had to present some evidence of each element.” Henderson, supra, 282 Mich App at 319. Further, “[c]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence can be sufficient.” Id.
In the instant case, the defendant had pleaded guilty to maliciously driving his car into a flock of geese in an attempt to scare them away. The defendant, in order to prove his act to have a just cause or excuse, has the additional burden to prove that he did not act intentionally or with conscious disregard of known risks. This is crucial to overcome the element of malice, which is an essential element in an animal cruelty conviction. Further, the portion of MCL 750.50b (2) relating to killing or torturing an animal is a general intent crime and the prosecution needs to present only some evidence of each element to establish the commission of the crime. Therefore, the defendant may find it difficult to prove that his act of driving the car into a nuisance flock of geese was just and excusable.
CONCLUSION
The torturing or killing of an animal under MCL 750.50b (2) is a general intent crime and the prosecution needs to present only some evidence of each element to establish the commission of the crime. Additionally, malice is an essential element in a conviction for animal cruelty. Since the defendant had pled guilty to maliciously driving his car into a flock of geese to scare them away, it is difficult to prove that his action had a just cause or excuse, which in turn is an element of malice. Further, no similar situation involving driving a vehicle into a nuisance flock has been addressed by the courts.[2]
[1] People v Fennell, 260 Mich App 261, 270; 677 NW2d 66, 71 (2004)
[2] In fact, DNR website states that throwing firecrackers or chasing geese with any motorized device (on land or water) are NOT authorized scare methods. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12145_25065-59467–,00.html
