CONVICTED: Was justice served?
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 "Peoples 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 isnt enough.
Case #6531 Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Dog trapped, beaten to death
Bexar County, TX (US)Incident Date: Wednesday, Oct 9, 1974
County: Bexar
Disposition: Convicted
Defendant/Suspect: James M McGinnis
On October 9, 1974, in Bexar County, Texas, the defendant, James M. McGinnis, did intentionally and knowingly torture an animal, to-wit: said James M. McGinnis did trap a dog in a metal animal trap, injuring the dog's leg, and said defendant did then and there beat the said dog to death.
The charge instructed the jury, over the appellant's objection, that the acts described constituted proof of torture of an animal. This was a comment on the weight of the evidence. The charge did not permit the jury to determine whether the acts described in the court's charge constituted proof of the torture of an animal. The jury should have been instructed on the definitions of torture of an animal, and it should have been permitted to determine whether the acts described in the circumstances of this case show the torture of an animal.
The law appears to contemplate that in some circumstances the infliction of pain and suffering on an animal may be necessary and justifiable, and in such circumstances would not be torture of the animal. The testimony of the appellant in this case raised issues of whether his acts were necessary and justifiable in protecting his family and property because he had no other remedy or relief.
We will not rule on the sufficiency of the pleading inasmuch as that issue has neither been raised nor briefed; however, even if the pleading is sufficient, we observe that it may very well have misled the court into submitting the improper charge.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
References |
