Dog fatally shot Fort Jones, CA (US) Incident Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 County: Siskiyou Local Map: available Disposition: Convicted Abuser/Suspect: Kathryn Aldrich

Case ID: 5982 Classification: Shooting Animal: dog (non pit-bull) View more cases in CA (US) Animal was offleash or loose Login to Watch this Case

A Fort Jones woman was sentenced in early November 2005 to more than $8,000 in fines, 5 years probation and 48 hours in the county jail for shooting her neighbor's Rottweiler after she claimed the dog had come onto her property and threatened her livestock and her child.

Brandon Fawaz, the owner of the dog, is a contract farmer who says a dispute began between him and his neighbor, Kathryn Aldrich, when Aldrich and her husband decided to narrow a driveway that serves both properties. When the width of the driveway was preventing Fawaz from getting his farming equipment on and off his property, Fawaz contacted a lawyer and �that's when the problems started,� according to Fawaz.

Aldrich's lawyer, William Duncan, claimed throughout Aldrich's two-day trial that his client had acted reasonably because of the danger she perceived the dog posed to her family and her pets when the dog arrived at her property on the day of the shooting. Duncan claimed that the same Rottweiler had bitten a woman on the arm four to six weeks prior to this incident.

After shooting the dog, Aldrich called the sheriff's department to report the incident. When Siskiyou County Sheriff's Sgt. Mike Gilley arrived, Aldrich reportedly told him that the dog was on her porch, facing her and growling when she shot it. However, the veterinarian who treated the dog after the shooting testified the dog had been shot in the back. Gilley testified he found no evidence of blood on the porch and did not see any livestock on Aldrich's property on the day of the shooting.

Deputy District Attorney Christine Chenevert told Judge Henry Nelson at the conclusion of the trial that the motivation for the shooting was not because Aldrich was in fear for the safety of herself, her child, her pets or her livestock, but �to get even with Brandon Fawaz. This was a retaliatory execution of an innocent dog,� Chenevert told the judge. �She is an angry, bitter woman, which came out from the stand,� Chenevert added.

During the trial, Aldrich's lawyer relied on a section of the Agriculture Code that allows a property owner to shoot and kill a dog entering property where livestock is kept. The code section also says that no civil or criminal action will be brought against any person killing a dog under those circumstances.

At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Nelson decided that the provisions in the Agriculture Code that protects ranchers from dogs harassing their livestock was a privilege not available to Aldrich.

�The sudden shooting of the Fawaz dog without any evidence of livestock being present raises the question of whether this shooting rises to the privilege created in the Agriculture Code,� the judge said. In addition, the judge found that Aldrich's 5-year-old child was inside the house sleeping, which disputed Aldrich's claim that she shot the dog to protect her young child.

At sentencing, Chenevert argued for the maximum sentence for Aldrich. �This crime involved great violence and great bodily injury to a defenseless animal,� Chenevert said. �She waited until Brandon Fawaz left, untied his dog and brought the dog onto her property where she shot him.� Chenevert claimed Aldrich had initiated the attack and has never acknowledged any wrong doing.

Duncan described Aldrich as the mother of three small children with no prior criminal record who had been active in PTA and described her as a pillar of the community. Duncan contended that a lot of people have been charged with less serious offenses and sentenced to a lot less than what Chenevert was seeking for a sentence in Aldrich's case. �My client does not deserve a single day in jail,� Duncan told Judge Nelson, and held fast to his contention that his client had felt threatened and acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Judge Nelson found Aldrich guilty of two counts of animal cruelty and sentenced her to a 100-day jail sentence, suspended. Nelson said he would not typically have given a jail sentence in a case like this, but he did not believe that Aldrich had been totally truthful at trial. Aldrich was sentenced to serve 48 hours in jail �to give her a taste of what to expect,� if she should violate her probation.

Aldrich was placed on five years probation, was ordered to pay restitution of $500 to Fawaz to obtain a new dog and pay the veterinary bills for the treatment of the dog that was shot. She was ordered to pay $5,000 in fines, plus an additional $1,500 to SNIP and $1,500 to Rescue Ranch. She also cannot own or possess a firearm during the period of her probation and must participate in anger management counseling.

�This case never should have been prosecuted,� Duncan said after trial. �We respect the judge's decision, but we believe an incorrect result was reached,� Duncan added. Duncan said he and his client are meeting this week to consider whether to appeal the judge's decision.

Neighborhood Map

For more information about the Interactive Animal Cruelty Maps, see the map notes.

Back to Top

Add this case to:

Del.icio.us

|

Digg

|

Furl

|

References

Siskiyou Daily News - Nov 10, 2005

« CA State Animal Cruelty Map

Not sure what these icons mean? Click here.

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.