Twenty-eight horses were seized by Placer County Animal Services on November 6, 2000 from Judi Spencer, a local resident.
The horses were seized into protective custody because of reports that the horses were not being appropriately cared for. There was an investigation, and later two court cases.
Recently much information has been circulated regarding the status of the horses. Unfortunately, while many of the reports have elements that are true, many others are, in fact, incorrect. The following is a chronology of the events surrounding this matter along with an explanation of the applicable law.
After the 28 horses were seized, two related, but very different legal proceedings were initiated as a result of the seizure, a criminal proceeding brought by the Office of Placer County District Attorney (DA) and a civil proceeding brought by Judi Spencer challenging the legality of the seizure by Placer County Animal Control (AC), which action was and is being defended by the Office of Placer County Counsel (CC).
In the criminal proceeding, the DA charged Spencer with, among other lesser charges (relating to giving false evidence), animal cruelty charges. These animal cruelty charges, unlike the lesser charges, provided that upon conviction, the defendant would forfeit the abused animals to the County, which could then adopt them out. However, by law, if a conviction on the animal cruelty charges could not be obtained, the animals would have to be returned to the owner free of charge.
In the civil proceeding, Spencer sought to show that the seizure was improper, as the horses were not abused. CC defended AC's actions, contending that the horses were in fact abused and that the seizure was therefore proper. The applicable law in the civil proceeding does not contain any forfeiture provision, even if abuse of the animals is proven. The purpose of the civil statutes is simply to get the abused animals healthy, not to punish the owner. Punishment is dealt with in the criminal proceeding, not the civil proceeding.
In the civil proceeding, CC was successful in defending the seizure at both the trial court and appellate court level. The matter never went before the Supreme Court. After the initial civil proceeding, the court ordered that the horses be held until the criminal proceeding ended. The County thereafter complied with the court order.
In the criminal proceeding, the DA was able to obtain a jury verdict on the animal cruelty charges. However, the trial court thereafter threw out the verdict and granted Spencer a new trial based in part on the Spencer's potential defense that AC was responsible for the under-feeding as the feed plan imposed on Spencer in the fall of 2000 was inadequate even if fully complied with. The DA appealed that decision and, unfortunately, the Court of Appeals refused to reverse the trial court's decision granting a new trial, holding that the inadequate feed plan defense mentioned above was potentially valid and therefore, should have been offered at trial.
In March 2004, the DA determined not to retry the case. They therefore dismissed the animal cruelty charges in exchange for a conviction on the lesser, false evidence charges.
Spencer has now filed a motion in the civil proceeding seeking the return of her property as provided by law. The County has no legal right to retain the horses any longer as the criminal proceedings concluded without a conviction on the animal cruelty charges. The only legal issue remaining is the amount of compensation the County is entitled to for expenses incurred by the County for boarding the horses. The County and Spencer are very far apart in their views on this issue with Spencer arguing that she is not obligated to pay any amount and the County arguing that she is obligated to pay at least tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
At the coming hearing on Spencer's motion for return of the horses, the court will determine what amount is due the County. Any such amount, by law, constitutes a valid lien on the horses if not paid by Spencer. This means, some or all of the horses can be sold to pay the lien, depending on the value of the lien versus the value of the horses. If she pays the lien, by law, the County is obligated to return the horses to her. Case UpdatesJudi Dyan Spencer, who had been prosecuted over a period of three years for allegedly underfeeding 27 horses, was originally ordered in civil court to pay all or part of $600,000 in restitution to Placer County. If she did not pay, she could not get the horses back. She was instead ordered to pay the lien amount of $54,247, agreed upon by both Spencer and the county.
Spencer had been convicted of criminal animal cruelty but appealed. The court granted her a retrial. She then agreed to plead no contest to two misdemeanor charges of falsifying records of feed purchases and the D.A.'s office dropped the felony charge. Consequently, a retrial never happened.
Because Spencer was never convicted of the felony charge, it was left up to the judge to determine whether she would get the horses back. The animals were in foster homes or the Placer County Animal Shelter for the past four years. The judge originally ordered her to pay the estimated $600,000 incurred by the county since the horses were seized. The defendant argued that she shouldn't have to repay the money since she wasn't convicted of a felony. | Source: ALDF - May 24, 2004
Update posted on Oct 21, 2005 - 4:49PM |
References« CA State Animal Cruelty Map
|
