Case Details
Share:

Case Snapshot
Case ID: 10797
Classification: Neglect / Abandonment
Animal: cow
More cases in Monroe County, WI
More cases in WI
Login to Watch this Case



CONVICTED: Was justice served?

Please vote on whether or not you feel the sentence in this case was appropriate for the crime. (Be sure to read the entire case and sentencing before voting.)

weak sentence = one star
strong sentence = 5 stars

more information on voting

When you vote, you are voting on whether or not the punishment fit the crime, NOT on the severity of the case itself. If you feel the sentence was very weak, you would vote 1 star. If you feel the sentence was very strong, you would vote 5 stars.

Please vote honestly and realistically. These ratings will be used a a tool for many future programs, including a "People’s Choice" of best and worst sentencing, DA and judge "report cards", and more. Try to resist the temptation to vote 1 star on every case, even if you feel that 100 years in prison isn’t enough.

Case #10797 Rating: 4.0 out of 5



Farm animals neglected
Monroe, WI (US)

Incident Date: Monday, Feb 7, 2000
County: Monroe

Disposition: Convicted

Defendant/Suspect: Patricia A. Nichols

Patricia A. Nichols owned and managed a farm in Monroe County, Wisconsin, beginning in 1988. According to reports, during the latter part of 1996, Nichols cared for approximately three-dozen cows on her property. When some of her cows began exhibiting signs of illness, Nichols contacted a local veterinarian to examine them. When the health of her cows did not improve, she contacted other veterinarians in the area for assistance. According to court documents, a total of four veterinarians visited Nichol's farm in January and February of 1997. Each incident involved a downed cow, meaning that the animal was too weak to stand on its own.

After several visits by veterinarians, a county humane officer received a complaint that Nichols had several dead animals on her property. After police investigated the complaint, a search warrant was issued for Nichols property, and on February 7, 2000, authorities seized the cows. The State charged Nichols with thirty-four counts of failure to provide adequate food and water to confined animals and thirty-four counts of providing improper shelter and sanitation for animals.

During the trial, the four veterinarians who had visited Nichol's farm noted that the cows appeared to be malnourished and weak. In addition, each veterinarian agreed that lack of proper nutrition was the cause of the continued sickness among the cows. Nichols allegedly admitted that at the time of the seizure, her farm was "not running smoothly" due to financial problems. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all sixty-eight counts. The court sentenced Nichols to eighteen months probation and fifty hours of community service.

Patricia Nichols appealed based on the argument that her trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to call witnesses to refute the testimony of the veterinarians called by the State. Nichols further asserted that the evidence was insufficient to convict her because Wisconsin Statue 951.13 applies only when a defendant has failed to provide both food and water to a confined animal.

On appeal the State asserted that the statute reads "food AND water", not "food OR water", and therefore required a person to provide BOTH food and water. The Court concluded that Nichol's assertion that the statute would allow an individual to either starve an animal as long as water was provided, or dehydrate an animal as long as food was provided would be an absurd result. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that denying either food or water to a confined animal was a violation of the statute, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Nichols under the statute. Her conviction was affirmed on October 18, 2001.

References

  • State of Wisconsin 4th District Court of Appeals Case # 01-0472-CR


« More cases in Monroe County, WI

Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.



Send this page to a friend
© Copyright 2001-2012 Pet-Abuse.Com. All rights reserved. Site Map ¤ Disclaimer ¤ Privacy Policy