Hill v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KM-01650-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-21-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Malicious or mischievous injury to dog - Constitutionality of section 97-41-16 Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-05-2002 Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court Judge: Ann H. Lamar Disposition: Appellant was convicted of animal cruelty. District Attorney: C. Gaines Baker Case Number: CR2002-126-LP2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth B. Hill |
DAVID L. WALKER
TOMMY W. DEFER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Malicious or mischievous injury to dog - Constitutionality of section 97-41-16 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Hill was convicted of violating section 97-41-16 which governs malicious or mischievous injury to dogs. The justice court ordered Hill to pay a $500 fine, $2,500 in restitution, and court costs and sentenced him to 90 days in jail which would be suspended pending payment of the fine, restitution, and good behavior. Hill appealed to circuit court which convicted him and ordered him to pay a $750 fine, $3,000 in restitution, and sentenced him to six months in jail pending compliance with the court's orders and pending future good behavior. Hill appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hill argues that section 97-41-16 is unconstitutionally vague, because it does not define "spirit of revenge," does not indicate whether the spirit of revenge must be directed toward the dog or its owner, and fails to define what constitutes wanton cruelty in killing a dog. Section 97-41-16 provides that any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any dog shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not exceeding 6 months. The test concerning statutory construction is whether a person of reasonable intelligence would receive fair notice of that which is required or forbidden. Hill readily admitted that he shot the dog twice in the head with a 16-gauge shotgun and that the dog was posing no threat whatsoever at the time. In addition, he dragged the corpse down a paved road before disposing of it. Hill shot the dog without provocation and not in the exercise of self defense. An ordinary person giving a fair reading of section 97-41-16 would conclude that Hill's conduct was prohibited. On these facts, section 97-41-16 is not unconstitutionally vague such that it would not give Hill sufficient notice that the conduct in which he engaged was proscribed. The absence of provocation or self defense clearly falls within the ambit of "maliciously," "mischievously," and "wanton cruelty" as contemplated in section 97-41-16. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
