People v. Moors

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered January 15, 2015, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of aggravated cruelty to animals.

While on a hunting trip on his sister’s property, defendant used a bow and arrow to shoot and kill Clara, the neighbors’ family dog.^[1] As a result, defendant was charged with, among other things, aggravated cruelty to animals. Following a nonjury trial, County Court convicted defendant of aggravated cruelty to animals, sentenced him to six months in jail and five years of probation — requiring defendant to complete 250 hours

Defendant argues that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence^[2] or was against the weight of the evidence because he did not kill Clara in a depraved or sadistic manner. We disagree. As relevant here, a defendant is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals if “he or she intentionally kills ... a companion animal with aggravated cruelty” and with no justifiable purpose (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a [1]; see People v Facey, 127 AD3d 1256 , 1256-1257 [2015]). Aggravated cruelty is defined as conduct which is either “(i) . . . intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner” (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a [l]).^[3]

A police officer who interviewed defendant after the killing testified that defendant admitted that he knew he should not have shot Clara. A veterinarian who had attempted to treat Clara explained that she had been shot in the left abdomen and had died as a result of the wound and related internal bleeding. According to defendant, while he was in his hunting blind, he observed Clara with his binoculars, replaced the broadhead arrow that was in his bow with a field tip arrow and then shot Clara. Defendant conceded that he knew Clara was not a coyote and that “everything about her appearance” was consistent with that of a domesticated dog. Further proof was introduced that supported a reasonable inference that Clara was facing away from defendant when he shot her and that defendant’s choice in replacing a larger broadhead arrow with a smaller field tip arrow was likely to save defendant money while risking a longer and more painful death for Clara. Additional proof established that Clara suffered for at least 20 minutes after she was shot, and that period began with her “screeching” and “flopping” on the ground and ended with her “choking and . . . gurgling” in the back end of her owners’