Case Details

Puppy beaten to death with bolt cutters
Elizabethtown, IN (US)

Date: Sep 10, 2005
Disposition: Alleged

Alleged Abusers:

  • 16 year old
  • 17 year old

    Case Updates: 1 update(s) available
  • Case ID: 5541
    Classification: Beating
    Animal: dog (non pit-bull)
    View more cases in IN (US)
    Abuse was retaliation against animal's bad behavior
    Action Alert - Click Here
    Login to Watch this Case

    Two Bartholomew County teens could be charged as adults on accusations that they killed a puppy during a burglary over the weekend.

    Police said the teens -- a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old -- beat a 6-month-old puppy because it wouldn't stop barking as they tried to steal two vehicles from an Elizabethtown-area barn early Sept 10.

    "They took ... bolt cutters and beat the animal in the head with the bolt cutters, which resulted in the canine's death," Bartholomew County sheriff's Maj. Mark Gorbett said.

    Police said the burglary happened at about 2 a.m. The property's owner, Tim Isley, said he was about to go to bed when he heard his dogs barking.

    Isley said he saw two people outside his barn. Someone in the Isley home called 911, and while the family waited for police to arrive, the barking stopped, he said.

    "All of the sudden it was just quiet," Isley said.

    The teens were arrested and sent to a juvenile detention center. They face charges of burglary and animal cruelty.

    Police said the teens had cut the leash of one dog so that it would run away, but they killed the puppy because it wouldn't stop making noise.

    "The bottom line is they didn't want to get caught. They killed the animal that was barking," Gorbett said.

    The county prosecutor intends to ask a judge to move the case to adult court, Spencer reported.

    Take Action!  Propel Change - Go to the action aledrt for this case now

    Case Updates

    Posted on Feb 26, 2006 - 9:34AM
    The story of a dead puppy turned even more complicated February 15, 2006, as the boy accused of killing the animal during a burglary testified that his accomplice committed the crime instead. Telling his story in court for the first time, the boy said his accomplice panicked while attempting to cut loose the barking beagle and silenced the puppy with a pair of bolt cutters. After more than three hours of testimony from family members, police and both boys involved in the September 2005 incident in Elizabethtown, Juvenile Referee Heather Mollo said she would rule on the 17-year-old�s role in the crime within a week.

    She noted that she does not feel someone must be found guilty of animal cruelty in the case, even though it resulted in a dead dog. Attorneys conceded that details of that night might never be clear. Guilt or innocence is determined by the judge in juvenile court cases, although prosecutors still must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Republic does not name juvenile crime suspects unless they have been waived to adult court. The boys, both 17, each pleaded guilty to felony charges of burglary and attempted theft for the incident, during which they tried to steal the wheels off an all-terrain vehicle in a rural barn. One boy also was charged with animal cruelty after his accomplice told police officers he had killed the animal.

    During court, the charge was dropped to an A misdemeanor from a D felony, after the prosecutor pointed out that according to state law, animal cruelty is a felony only if the animal has been tortured or mutilated. Prosecutors consulted a veterinarian expert and concluded the beagle, named Sparky, had not been tortured. Harrowing details of the late-night crime emerged during the testimony, including the fact that a Bartholomew County sheriff�s deputy, unsure of what he was facing, had drawn his gun when he came across the boys hiding in the barn. The cruelty suspect, 16 at the time of the burglary, said during the hearing that in the early hours of September 10, 2006, they had decided his accomplice should cut loose the barking puppy, since he was quicker. The dog was running back and forth, the boy said, so when his accomplice couldn�t cut the leash, he hit the dog with bolt cutters. �(My accomplice) said, �Did you see that? I kicked that thing�s ass,�� the boy said. The testimony stood in contrast to his accomplice�s story. The accomplice, who testified as a witness, claimed he refused repeated orders from the suspect to silence the dog. �He said, �Just do it. You�re a hardass. You�re supposed to do that stuff,�� the accomplice testified. The accomplice claimed the other boy took the bolt cutters from him, and he saw the suspect strike the dog.

    The boy�s attorney, Tim Coriden, and Deputy Prosecutor Michael DeArmitt used their closing arguments to attack the credibility of witnesses. DeArmitt pointed out that the suspect had confessed to lying about other matters and hatching the plan to break into the barn. Coriden pointed to inconsistencies in the accomplice�s testimony, and questioned why a police officer testified that the suspect had confessed to kicking the dog, but the detail was not included in the initial police report. �Because he didn�t give a statement to police, my client is the one who has been labeled as a dog killer,� Coriden said. �This is the day he can be vindicated. It�s up to the court.� DeArmitt pointed out that of the two boys, the suspect knew the victim�s property best, and he knew a dog lived there. The suspect admitted taking a knife to deal with the dog, though he said it was meant only to cut its leash. �(The suspect) admits on the state he lies (in other matters). He has a motive (to lie),� DeArmitt said. �He is the one who knew that dog would have to be overcome.�
    Source: The Republic News - February 16, 2006 

    References

    The Indy Channel - Sept 12, 2005

    « Back to Search Results



    Send this page to a friend
    © Copyright 2001-2006 Pet-Abuse.Com. All rights reserved. Site Map ¤ Disclaimer ¤ Privacy Policy