Ohio Supreme Court: Felony cruelty law applies to harming stray dogs and cats
A state law elevating the penalty for animal cruelty to a felony protects all dogs and cats, including strays, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled Wednesday.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Alonzo Kyles could be convicted of fifth-degree felony animal cruelty for pouring bleach into an apartment building basement to make an unclaimed cat leave. The Court reversed an Eighth District Court of Appeals decision, which found the felony-level animal cruelty statute only applied to dogs and cats that had “received care” from someone, not strays.
Writing for the Court majority, Justice Patrick F. Fischer explained the state law is not clearly written, but is designed to protect all cats and dogs, including those that are not kept in a residential dwelling or by a person.
“Applying the statute’s plain meaning, we hold that R.C. 959.131's prohibition on causing serious physical harm to a companion animal extends to all dogs and cats,” Justice Fischer wrote.
The Court remanded the case to the Eighth District to consider other legal challenges Kyles raised to his 2022 conviction.
In October 2021, Cleveland police were called to a complaint from an apartment building. Officers found Kyles on the stairway leading to the basement and could hear a cat in distress meowing. Kyles told the officers he was afraid of cats and had poured bleach on the floor to make the cat leave.
One officer observed the cat had red and swollen paws, no collar, and appeared to be unclaimed by anyone in the building. The cat was taken to West Park Animal Hospital. A veterinarian who treated the animal testified in court that the cat was dirty and unfriendly but not aggressive. The vet noted the cat’s paws had ulcerations, which are a common symptom of bleach exposure.
Kyles was indicted on one count of animal cruelty under R.C. 959.131(C). He was found guilty and sentenced to nine months in jail. He appealed his sentence to the Eighth District, arguing the law applies to causing serious physical harm to a companion animal, and the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence the cat was a companion animal.
The law’s definition of “companion animal” includes “any dog or cat, regardless of where it is kept.” The Eighth District determined “kept” meant to “take care of” and the felony-level animal cruelty law applied to a cat or dog receiving care. The law did not apply to a stray cat, which is only protected by misdemeanor -level prohibitions on animal cruelty, the appeals court concluded. The Eighth District vacated Kyle’s conviction.
The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The opinion explained the dispute centers on the definition of “companion animal.” R.C. 959.131(C) defines “companion animal” as “any animal that is kept inside a residential dwelling and any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept, including a pet store.”
The prosecutor argued the term “regardless” qualifies the place where an abused animal is found and applies to “any dog or cat” no matter where it is found or whether it is owned. Kyles argued the term “regardless” is followed by the condition of “where it is kept.” This means for a dog or cat to qualify as a companion animal, it has to be “kept” by someone whether it is inside or not.
“The statute in this case is no model of clarity,” Justice Fischer wrote.
He explained both sides provide a reasonable argument, but the inclusion of the word “any” provides strong support that the law applies to any dog or cat, including strays. He noted that in prior decisions, the Court has interpreted the word “any” in a statute to mean “all.”
The Court turned to two dictionaries for the meaning of “regardless” and determined for this law it meant “without regard for.” The definition of “companion animal” could be read as “any dog or cat without regard for where that dog or cat is,” the opinion stated. The term “regardless” does not set a condition that limits the application of the law, as Kyles argued, but rather expands it, the Court ruled.
“We are not convinced by Kyles’s argument that ‘regardless of where the animal is kept’ is a clause that means the animal must be kept. Kyles argues that if R.C. 959.131 was meant to protect all dogs and cats, then the statute would say ‘any dog or cat regardless of whether it is kept,’” the Court stated. “But the General Assembly did not have to use that language to accomplish its purpose of protecting all dogs and cats. Instead, it chose to use the expansive word, ‘any.’”
The opinion explained the law’s wording is meant to eliminate the residential requirement for cats and dogs, so that it applies to those animals not living in residential dwellings.
Publisher's note: A free press is critical to having well-informed voters and citizens. While some news organizations opt for paid websites or costly paywalls, The Highland County Press has maintained a free newspaper and website for the last 25 years for our community. If you would like to contribute to this service, it would be greatly appreciated. Donations may be made to: The Highland County Press, P.O. Box 849, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133. Please include "for website" on the memo line.