Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...------------------------------------------------------------ Reckless Driving 316.192 28.5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments This instruction was adopted in 2008. 29.13 ANIMAL CRUELTY [FELONY] [§ 828.12(2), Fla....

...g is caused, permitted, or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief, except when done in the interest of medical science. Only read definition for terms "Torture" or "Torment" when State seeks sentencing enhancements pursuant to § 828.12(2)(a), Fla....

...ANSTEAD, C.J. We have for review Reynolds v. State, 784 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), based on express and direct conflict with State v. Simbach, 742 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We conclude that section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997), prohibiting cruelty to animals, constitutes a general intent crime, and we approve the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Reynolds rejecting the petitioner's due process attack on the statute and affirming his conviction. BACKGROUND Petitioner, Ronald Reynolds, was convicted of felony animal cruelty pursuant to section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. On appeal from his conviction to the First District Court of Appeal, petitioner asserted that section 828.12(2) should be construed to require a specific intent, or, if not, should be found facially unconstitutional because it did not include a specific intent element. Reynolds v. State, 784 So.2d 509, 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The district court rejected petitioner's assertions, and concluded first that the plain language of section 828.12(2) did not require specific intent, or in other words, the statute did not require the defendant to "commit an act intending to cause a cruel death or excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering." Id....

...Historically, the former has been called a "general intent" crime, and the latter has been called a "specific intent" crime. Id. at 511. Further, in determining that specific intent was not constitutionally required, Judge Webster explained: The fact that section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997), requires only general, rather than specific, intent does not, as appellant argues, necessitate the conclusion that the statute is unconstitutional....

...re to determine in defining the crime. The elements of a crime are derived from the statutory definition. State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816, 819-20 (Fla.1983). The legislature has, by plain language, declared that one is guilty of the crime proscribed by section 828.12(2) regardless of whether he or she acted with the specific intent to inflict upon an animal a cruel death or excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering. Id. The district court affirmed the conviction and held that (1) section 828.12(2) only required general intent, and (2) the lack of a specific intent element in section 828.12(2) did not render the statute facially unconstitutional....

...Simbach In contrast to the First District's decision, the Second District in State v. Simbach, 742 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), held that section 812.12(2) did require proof of a specific intent of cruelty. In Simbach, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss felony animal cruelty charges under section 828.12 "because [the defendant] did not intend for the animal to endure a cruel death or any unnecessary pain or suffering." Simbach, 742 So.2d at 366. In a brief analysis, the Second District concluded, "We agree with the trial court's interpretation of section 828.12 as requiring a specific intent to cause a cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering." Id. ANALYSIS The conflict between the Simbach and Reynolds decisions is whether section 828.12(2) requires that an alleged offender have a specific intent to bring about a cruel death or unnecessary pain and suffering of an animal. [1] We agree with Judge Webster's conclusion in Reynolds that the Legislature, by the plain language of the statute, intended for section 828.12(2) to operate as a general intent crime. Relying on State v. Huggins, 802 So.2d 276 (Fla.2001), petitioner argues that the word "intentionally" as used in section 828.12(2) should modify the rest of the phrase as well, such that a person would not be criminally liable unless the person actually intended a "cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering." Petitioner's...

...e adjective modifies subsequent nouns, for example, "qualified man or woman" and "governmental fine or penalty" mean "qualified man or qualified woman" and "governmental fine or governmental penalty, respectively." Id. at 278. However, the phrase in section 828.12(2) is unlike the phrase in Huggins because it does not involve an adjective immediately followed by a list of nouns....

...State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998). In determining the Legislature's intent, we look first at the statute's plain language. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co., 748 So.2d 993, 997 (Fla.1999); Moonlit Waters Apartments, Inc. v. Cauley, 666 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla.1996). Section 828.12(2) plainly states: "A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree ...." § 828.12(2) (emphasis added)....

...der acted with the mental intent to inflict a cruel death or unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, if the Legislature wanted the statute to include the specific intent to cause a cruel death or suffering, they could have specifically said so. Notably, section 828.12(2) previously provided: A person who tortures any animal with intent to inflict intense pain, serious physical injury, or death upon the animal is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. § 828.12(2), Fla....

...Rather, the statute simply requires that the person " intentionally commit[] an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done." Id. (emphasis added). See also § 828.12(2), Fla....

...However, as noted above, Chicone involved statutes that were silent as to the requisite intent. In the instant case, there is an intent expressly provided for in the statute. A person must "intentionally commit[] an act" that results in an animal's cruel death or causes an animal an excessive amount of suffering. § 828.12(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). Thus, unlike the situation in Chicone, here the Legislature was not silent on the subject of intent in drafting section 828.12(2). Finally, petitioner argues that even if section 828.12(2) is "written in language which sounds like it requires only general intent," we must, nonetheless, read specific intent into the statute for it to be constitutional....

...rimes." State v. Bussey, 463 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Fla.1985); see State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816, 819-820 (Fla.1983). Here, the Legislature has acted within that authority and has put potential offenders on express notice of the intent required to violate section 828.12(2)....

...Therefore, we conclude the lack of a provision requiring specific intent to inflict pain does not render the statute unconstitutional. CONCLUSION Based on the plain language of the statute, we hold that the First District was correct in its analysis and conclusion both as to intent requirements of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997), and the statute's constitutionality. We approve *52 Reynolds and disapprove Simbach to the extent that it holds that section 828.12(2) requires specific intent....

...rd that is not present, it would also change the meaning of the statute. When construing statutes, courts "are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature." See Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1999). [3] Section 828.12 was amended as follows: (1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats, mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or c...

...y liable, such as hunters, fishers, pest control workers, slaughterhouse workers, and animal shelter employees. This argument is without merit for two reasons. First, there is a general prohibition against unnecessarily killing an animal in Florida. Section 828.12(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a person who "unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal......

...Moreover, we have already held that the type of concerns petitioner raises are more appropriately addressed to the Legislature. See Wilkerson v. State, 401 So.2d 1110, 1112 (Fla.1981) ("Appellant has raised some difficult questions concerning the applicability of this statute [section 828.12] to hunters, fishermen, and pest exterminators....

...Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and C. Michael Barnette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us to review a county court order upholding the constitutionality of section 828.12, Florida Statutes (1979)....

..., or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. § 828.12, Fla....

...We therefore affirm. It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion. ALDERMAN, Justice, concurring specially. Because Wilkerson's conduct was clearly proscribed by section 828.12, Florida Statutes (1979), he was without standing to challenge this statute on the basis of overbreadth as applied to him....

...fense of Felony Battery is only applicable if element 2a is charged and proved. This instruction was adopted in 1992 [603 So.2d 1175] and was amended in 1995 [657 So.2d 1152], and 2007 [962 So.2d 310], and 2008. 29.13(a) ANIMAL CRUELTY (MISDEMEANOR) § 828.12(1), Fla....

...We conclude that this is plainly different from the issue of vagueness in respect to section 843.085(1) because section 843.085(1) potentially reaches constitutionally protected expression and has no specific intent-to-deceive *1023 element. These factors were not involved in L.B. In Reynolds, section 828.12, Florida Statutes (1997), prohibiting cruelty to animals, was upheld against a substantive due process attack....

...In Reynolds, we upheld a statute providing that "[a] person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done" commits a third-degree felony. Id. at 47 (quoting § 828.12(2), Fla....

...City of Clearwater, 777 F.2d 598, 606 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1116, 106 S.Ct. 1973, 90 L.Ed.2d 656 (1986). If this Court were to find that the ordinances were invalid, Plaintiffs would still be prohibited from performing ritual sacrifices under § 828.12 of the Florida Statutes....

...The Hialeah ordinances, on the other hand, only prohibit sacrificing animals where the primary purpose is not food consumption. Accordingly, there is no conflict between the ordinances and § 828.22(3). Animal sacrifice also violates Florida Statutes § 828.12, which makes it a criminal violation for one to "unnecessarily" or "cruelly" kill an animal. See Wilkerson v. State, 401 So.2d 1110, 1112 (Fla.1981). The Attorney General's opinion notes that the ritual killing of an animal does not constitute a "necessary" killing so as to make the prohibition in § 828.12 against unnecessarily or cruelly killing an animal inapplicable....

...Additionally, even if § 828.27 did apply to the ordinances, that provision specifically authorizes municipalities to enact an ordinance identical to the state law "except as to penalty." While § 828.27 focuses on ordinances with a civil penalty, another section of that Chapter, § 828.12, directly provides a criminal punishment, as a first degree misdemeanor, for unnecessarily or cruelly beating, mutilating or killing an animal....

...umption on Church premises. Therefore, the issue of whether the Church could receive a zoning variance to perform animal sacrifice, where the animal is to be consumed, has never been directly addressed, and is not before the Court at this time. [47] Section 828.12 was recently amended to include a provision making intentional torture of animals punishable as a felony....

...ving economic speech to be distinguishable. [1] The record contains a letter from the State Attorney's office in Brevard County to PETA dated August 5, 1996, stating that "we will not presently be able to sustain a prosecution for animal abuse under section 828.12, Florida Statutes, in this case." The record also contains a letter from Governor Chiles dated October 2, 1996, indicating that the matter was reviewed by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, which found no violations....

WEBSTER, J. Appellant seeks review of his conviction for “intentionally committing] an act to an[ ] animal which resulted] in the ... excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering” in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997). He claims that (1) section 828.12(2) is facially unconstitutional because it does not include a specific intent element....

...ve because it does not allege that he acted with specific intent; and (4) the trial court committed fundamental error when it gave a jury instruction on the elements of the offense that did not include a specific intent element. We conclude that (1) section 828.12(2) requires only general intent; and (2) the lack of a specific intent element does not render the statute facially unconstitutional. Accordingly, we affirm. Section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997), reads: (2) A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s....

...State 442 So.2d 244, 247-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (en banc), approved as to result only, 476 So.2d 1262 (Fla.1985). See also Frey v. State, 708 So.2d 918 (Fla.1998) (discussing the distinctions between general and specific intent crimes). The fact that section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997), requires only general, rather than specific, intent does not, as appellant argues, necessitate the conclusion that the statute is unconstitutional....

...re to determine in defining the crime. The elements of a crime are derived from the statutory definition. State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816, 819-20 (Fla.1983). The legislature has, by plain language, declared that one is guilty of the crime proscribed by section 828.12(2) regardless of whether he or she acted with the specific intent to inflict upon an animal a cruel death or excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering. We hold that section 828.12(2) is not unconstitutional because it lacks a specific intent element....

...The state, by petition for writ of certiorari, seeks review of an order of the circuit *880 court reversing respondent's conviction and ordering a new trial. We deny the petition. Respondent was convicted by a jury in the county court of cruelty to animals, a violation of section 828.12, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...Garlisi, Tampa, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. PER CURIAM. We affirm the portion of the trial court's adjudication of delinquency that determined B.S. had violated section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1991), by torturing an animal with intent to inflict intense pain or death. We reverse the portion of the adjudication that committed B.S. to an indeterminate term of community control. Such term is impermissible because it will last beyond the five-year statutory maximum sentence for a violation of section 828.12(2), a third-degree felony....

...ourt seeking to enjoin appellants from continuing an alleged public nuisance. The plaintiff, appellee here, adduced testimony from a single witness, seeking to establish by that witness that appellants' actions were in violation of F.S. 828.02 and F.S. 828.12....

...s constituted a public nuisance, issuing the injunction prayed for. We reverse. Our examination of the brief record reveals that the plaintiff below, appellee here, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence violation of F.S. 828.02 or F.S. 828.12, therefore the defendants' motion for a judgment in their favor at the close of the plaintiff's case and again at the close of all of the evidence should have been granted....

...aining point relating to the constitutionality of the above mentioned statutes as applied to appellants by the order here appealed. Reversed. RAWLS, C.J., concurs. McCORD, J., dissents. McCORD, Judge (dissenting). This action was brought pursuant to § 828.12, Florida Statutes, which states as follows: "Whoever unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or mutilates or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicl...

...O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and DeCostas, Maer & Floyd, Miami, for appellee. MATHEWS, Justice. This case involves plain rooster fighting and cock fighting. It is contended by the appellee that such fighting is cruelty to animals and is condemned by Sections 828.12 and 828.02, F.S.A....

...* * *" In this case there is no question presented about artificial spurs or gambling on the result of the cock fights. Whatever fighting was done was without artificial *509 spurs and was not done in connection with any gambling activities. The section of the statute involved is Section 828.12, F.S.A....

...or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, unless otherwise provided." Necessarily involved in connection with Section 828.12, F.S.A....

...acts of agents and employees of corporations in regard to animals transported, owned, employed by or in the custody of a corporation, shall be held to be the knowledge and act of such corporation." Section 828.15, F.S.A. is as follows: "Nothing in §§ 828.12-828.14 shall be construed to apply to poultry shipped on steamboats or other crafts." Everyone familiar with roosters, and particularly game roosters, knows that they need no encouragement to fight....

...The resulting information merely alleged that Mr. Morival intentionally committed an act, as to each dog, that resulted in excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary *811 pain or suffering by failing to provide adequate food, water, or medical treatment in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...Morival's motion to dismiss was based on the theory that failure to feed a dog can constitute no more than a misdemeanor. The trial court agreed with his theory and dismissed the information. We review such an order de novo. See Bell v. State, 835 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Mr. Morival is correct that section 828.12(1) makes it a misdemeanor to unnecessarily deprive a dog of necessary sustenance. [1] Section 828.12(2) makes it a felony to "intentionally [commit] an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering." The question is whether all undernourishment cases fall withi...

...It is admittedly a closer question whether undernourishment could constitute the act of "excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering" as an offense more severe than "depriving an animal] of necessary sustenance" when the animal survives the abuse. Compare § 828.12(2) with § 828.12(1)....

...e condition of these dogs was not the result of repeated, long-term failure to feed, but the photographs in the record do not permit this issue to be resolved by a motion to dismiss. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] Section 828.12(1) provides that [a] person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehic...

animal cruelty. The animal cruelty statute, section 828.12, Florida Statutes (2007) provides as follows:

...5th DCA 2002). However, proof is not required that the accused committed the offense. Price. v. State, 776 So.2d 1100 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We conclude that the state established the corpus delicti of the offense. J.P. was charged with animal cruelty under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes, which provides that, a "person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes same to be done," commits a third degree felony....

...Weaver, 957 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla.2007). We conclude that no fundamental error occurred in this case, particularly given that the *343 jury was properly instructed on the elements of the charged offense. AFFIRMED. LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 828.12(2), Fla....

a qualified advanced care clinic fits under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2018), which reads: A

of two counts of animal cruelty pursuant to section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2015).1 The allegations

...ted. I would reverse. NOTES [1] Indeed, if no legal duty exists in this case or the three cases cited above, the law extends less concern and protection for disabled or elderly adults than there is for cats and dogs, a truly anomalous situation. See § 828.12, Fla....

...At trial, however, James testified this statement was inaccurate, that the defendant was not directly involved in his mother's care. The prior inconsistent statement, standing alone, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Green, 667 So.2d 756 (Fla.1995). [2] § 828.12, Fla....

ROWE, J. Brent Lukaszewski appeals his conviction and sentence for felony cruelty to animals in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...Where the state has presented evidence to support each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied. See State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). To establish the elements of felony cruelty to animals under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2011), the state was required to present competent substantial evidence to show that Lukaszewski committed an intentional act which resulted in “the excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering” to the dog. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 29.13. Section 828.12(2), provides that “[a] person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree....” Because section 828.12(2) is a general intent statute, it does not require intent to be cruel, but only intent to commit the act that results in the cruelty....

...We agree with the trial court and find the state presented competent substantial evidence for the jury to determine whether the alleged abuse was unnecessary and whether the alleged abuse was excessive or repeated infliction of pain or suffering in violation of section 828.12(2)....

...r probable cause existed for the arrest. Bloom states that he was prosecuted for felony counts of animal cruelty and misdemeanor counts of confining animals without sufficient water. (¶ 55). It appears that Bloom was arrested pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 828.12 which provides, inter alia, that it is a felony to intentionally deprive an animal of necessary sustenance or shelter, and Fla....

PER CURIAM. We affirm the portion of the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency that determined B.S. had violated section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1991), by torturing an animal with intent to inflict intense pain or death. We reverse the portion of the adjudication that committed B.S. to an indeterminate term of community control. Such term is impermissible because it will last beyond the five-year statutory maximum sentence for a violation of section 828.12(2), a third-degree felony....

subsequent to appellant’s act. The final statute — Section 828.12, Florida Statutes— is the only one of the four

...Jerry Hill State Attorney Tenth Judicial Circuit Drawer SA, Post Office Box 9000 Bartow, Florida 33830-9000 Dear Mr. Hill: You ask the following question: Whether a hog dog field trial (sometimes called a hog rodeo) violates the provisions of either section 828.12 or section 828.122 , Florida Statutes? In sum: A hog dog field trial would violate the provisions of section 828.122 and section 828.12 , Florida Statutes....

...You state that these dogs are often called bay dogs although they, in fact, act as catch dogs, pursuing and attacking the hog while attempting to bite and secure a hold on it. When this is accomplished, the animals are removed from the enclosure and judges announce scores for the dogs' performance. Section 828.122 , Florida Statutes, is "The Animal Fighting Act." 1 Subsection (3) of the statute provides that any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in section 775.082 , se...

...r animal. (b) Knowingly owning, managing, or operating any facility kept or used for the purpose of fighting or baiting any animal. (c) Promoting, staging, advertising, or charging any admission fee to a fight or baiting between two or more animals. Section 828.122 (4), Florida Statutes, makes it a misdemeanor of the first degree for any person to willfully wager any money or other valuable consideration on the fighting or baiting of animals or to attend the fighting or baiting of animals....

...information provided to this office, it appears that the hog dog field trials in which the dogs "act as catch dogs, pursuing and attacking the hog while attempting to bite and secure a hold on it" would fall within the above definition of "baiting." Section 828.122 (6), Florida Statutes, states that the provisions of subsections (3) and (4)(b) of the act do not apply to, among others, * * * (b) Any person using animals to pursue or take wildlife or to participate in any hunting regulated or subj...

...The hog dog field trials clearly do not involve any hunting regulated or subject to regulation by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Nor do such field trials constitute the hunting of wild hogs or the retrieval of domestic hogs. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the exceptions set forth above are not applicable. Section 828.12 (1), Florida Statutes, provides: A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessarily sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily ....

...allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief. . . ." 5 Based upon your description of the hog dog field trials, it appears that these activities would constitute the torture or tormenting of, or cruelty to, animals as proscribed in section 828.12 , Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that hog dog field trials would violate the provisions of section 828.122 and section 828.12 , Florida Statutes. Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tlsjw 1 Section 828.122 (1), Fla. Stat. (1993). 2 Section 828.122 (2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). And see, s. 828.122 (2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993), defining "Person" to include every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. 3 Section 828.02 , Fla. Stat. (1993). And see, Wilkerson v. State, 401 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1981). 4 Section 828.12 (2), Fla. Stat. (1993). These acts are "punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both." Committee Substitute for House Bill 1987, passed by the 1994 Florida Legislature, amends section 828.12 (2) to read: A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s....

COBB, J. Bruce Aaroe was convicted by a jury, pursuant to section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1999), 1 of felony cruelty to animals for shooting a cat (Smokey)....

...5 structure or conveyance” occurs when a person “willfully enters or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance” if the property “is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling”) (emphasis added); 6 § 828.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2020) (“A person who . . . unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done . . . in a cruel or inhumane manner, commits animal cruelty, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]”); § 828.12(2), Fla....

...ant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Y. McIntire, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. GROSS, J. Appellant, William Bartlett, was convicted of felony cruelty to animals, in violation *1126 of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...A deputy sheriff who arrived at the scene observed "countless amounts of pellets or BB's" in the opossum. An animal control officer testified that when he saw the opossum it was severely injured and appeared to be suffering extremely, so that it was necessary to euthanize the animal. Section 828.12(2) provides that: [a] person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done is guilty of a felony of the third degree. . . . The evidence supports appellant's conviction under this section. Section 828.12(2) criminalizes any "act" which results in the cruel death. The statute does not require an intent to cause the cruel death of an animal, but only an intent to commit the act that results in the cruel death. We also write to observe that as section 828.12 is written, there is a potential tension between conduct criminalized by the statute and the lawful pursuit of hunting. Section 828.12 applies to even the unintended consequence of a lawful act. Thus, a hunter's shot that only wounds an animal might lead the animal to suffer a "cruel death" some time and distance from the initial shot. Under these circumstances, the hunter has violated section 828.12(2) by intentionally firing the shot that set the sad events in motion....

...226, 228 (1910). An opossum is a "fur-bearing animal" within the meaning of section 372.001(10), Florida Statutes (2005). A licensed hunter may "take" a fur-bearing animal under the appropriate circumstances. See § 372.57(1), Florida Statutes (2005). As section 828.12(2) is written, there is a blurred line between the lawful hunting of an animal and the commission of a criminal act....

of two counts of animal cruelty pursuant to section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2015).1 The allegations

...2d 998 , 1000 (Fla. 2003). ANIMAL CRUELTY As for Count II, animal cruelty, the State argues that Avella's conduct in using a homemade tool to remove bone fragments from Thor's rectum and then failing *210 to take Thor to a qualified advanced care clinic fits under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2018), which reads: A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal, or a person who owns or has the custody or control of any animal and fails to act, which results in the cruel death, or excessive or rep...

this is not the case, we disagree, and affirm. Section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2018), states that "[a]

this is not the case, we disagree, and affirm. Section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2018), states that "[a]

...We now affirm Piccinini’s sentence. The circumstances surrounding the sentencing issue were presented in our original opinion. See Piccinini, 275 So. 3d at 211–13. Following a jury trial, Piccinini was convicted of two counts of animal cruelty pursuant to section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2015)....

...Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. ROWE, J. Appellant, Donald Ray Kervin, challenges his conviction for felony animal cruelty in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2012), arguing that the trial court erred in using the 2014 revised jury instruction to instruct the jury on the charged offense rather than the 2012 version of the instruction....

...After receiving the revised instructions, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Analysis On appeal, Kervin argues that the use of the 2014 instruction was error because that instruction was revised to reflect the 2013 amendment to section 828.12(2), which expanded the definition of felony animal cruelty to include a person’s failure to act....

...Wysong & Miles Co., 486 So.2d 673, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Here, the jury instruction read to the jury accurately stated the applicable law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction. Kervin was charged under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which read: A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or cause...

...f any animal and fails to act, which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, commits aggravated animal cruelty, a felony of the third degree. § 828.12(2), Fla....

...he animal or the animal's cruel death]. Id. (emphasis added). Although the 2013 amendment to the statute did, in a literal sense, add new language to the body of the statute, we agree with the Second District that the 2012 version of section 828.12(2) already included a person’s failure to act....

...s acts of negligence have been held to constitute felony animal cruelty under the 2012 version of the statute. See Horn v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 488 F. App’x 421, 425 (2012) (stating that even if the jury convicted the defendant under section 828.12(2) based on negligence, such a conviction would be consistent with the charge under Florida law)....

...y to resolve all issues in this case. The instruction requested by Kervin reflected the version of the statute in effect in 2012, but read as a whole, it did not fairly present the law in light of Brown’s analysis of Florida case law concerning section 828.12(2)....

...ontact their parents. He began to frisk C.W., at which time C.W. attempted to flee. Officer Riley had to place C.W. in hand restraints in order to control him. The arrest form stated that C.W. had been arrested for cruelty to animals in violation of section 828.12, Florida Statutes (1985), and for resisting an officer without violence in contravention of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...st. C.W. argues that he was privileged to resist his arrest without violence because the arrest was precipitated by an unsupported charge of cruelty to animals. We disagree. C.W. correctly asserts that the offense of cruelty to animals delineated in section 828.12 is a first-degree misdemeanor which must be committed in the presence of the arresting officer. § 901.15, Fla.Stat. (1985). However, Officer Riley’s citation to section 828.12 on the arrest form does not determine the validity of the charge upon which C.W.’s adjudication for delinquency was predicated....

828 and thus by city ordinance. QUESTION ONE Section 828.12, F.S., provides in pertinent part: Whoever

...n shall be determined beyond a reasonable doubt in a bifurcated proceeding. See State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000). This instruction was adopted in 2014. 29.13 AGGRAVATED ANIMAL CRUELTY [FELONY] § 828.12(2), Fla....

...(Defendant’s) [act] [or] [failure to act] resulted in [excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to the animal] [or] [the animal’s cruel death]. 23  Give if applicable. Enhancement. § 828.12(2)(a), Fla....

...so doing, [injured] [mutilated] [killed] the animal. Definition of “cruelty”, if cruel death charged. § 828.02, Fla. Stat. Only read definition for terms “Torture” or “Torment” when State seeks sentencing enhancements pursuant to § 828.12(2)(a), Fla....

...permitted, or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief, except when done in the interest of medical science. Only read definition for terms “Torture” or “Torment” when State seeks sentencing enhancements pursuant to § 828.12(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. AGGRAVATED ANIMAL CRUELTY — 828.12(2) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. None Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comment § 828.12(3) Fla....

...Aggravated Animal Cruelty. This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and amended in 2014. 24  29.13(a) ANIMAL CRUELTY (MISDEMEANOR) § 828.12(1), Fla....

...or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief, except when in the interest of medical science. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. ANIMAL CRUELTY — 828.12(1) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA....

...Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. COBB, W., Senior Judge. The appellant, Jeffrey Michael King, was convicted of aggravated assault on Jeffrey Lee King in violation of section 784.021(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and of animal cruelty in the death of a dog in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...s refusal to charge the jury on self-defense in respect to the animal cruelty count; and (3) the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal as to aggravated assault perpetrated against King. The first issue involves construction of section 828.12, Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part: (1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be...

...(2) A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. § 828.12(1)-(2), Fla....

...Brown was sentenced to six months of community control followed by three years of probation. She timely appeals, raising several arguments. We affirm, writing only to address her claim that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because a felony conviction for animal cruelty under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2011), could not be based on an omission or failure to act. I....

...He claimed he had not seen the tumor on Harley's neck. II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Ms. Brown argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt because the statute in effect at the time she committed the offense did not prohibit omissions. Section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provided as follows: A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary p...

...ony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. This court has held that a defendant can be properly charged with felony animal cruelty under this version of section 828.12(2) for intentionally committing an act that resulted in excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal by failing -4- to provide adequate food, water, or medical treatment....

...which an owner fails, for example, to provide food for a dog for a few days while the owner goes on vacation—which is surely no more than depriving the dog of necessary sustenance [a misdemeanor under section 828.12(1)]—and cases in which an owner does not feed a dog or feeds a dog so little that it suffers malnutrition over an extended period such that the animal loses a high percentage of its normal body weight [a felony under section 828.12(2)]. Id. at 812. Additionally, in Hynes v. State, 1 So. 3d 328, 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), the special concurrence explained that the trial court's conclusion that a defendant could not be convicted of a felony under section 828.12(2) for an omission was "dangerously wrong": Despite the trial court's expressed difficulty with the construction of this statute, the statutory scheme is clear....

...Brown was guilty of felony animal cruelty was for the jury—and the jury rejected Ms. Brown's version of events, instead finding that her failure to act was egregious enough to warrant a conviction. Ms. Brown also contends that the 2013 amendment of section 828.12(2) reveals that the 2011 version of the section did not include omissions....

...done, commits aggravated animal cruelty, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. -6- § 828.12, Fla....

...because the intent may be to clarify what was doubtful and to erase misapprehension as to existing law." Id. (quoting State ex rel. Szabo Food Servs., Inc. of N.C. v. Dickinson, 286 So. 2d 529, 531 (Fla. 1973)). Here, the legislature has confirmed that the change to section 828.12(2) was meant to "specify[] that a person who owns or has custody or control of any animal and fails to act commits aggravated animal cruelty if certain injuries or death result." Ch. 2013-245, Preamble, at 2826, Laws of Fla. (emphasis added). And, as already explained, the case law that existed prior to the 2013 amendment held that failure to act was covered by section 828.12(2). See Morival, 75 So. 3d at 812; see also Hynes, 1 So. 3d at 330-31 (Griffin, J., specially concurring). Accordingly, we conclude that the 2013 amendment to section 828.12(2) did not change the law but rather clarified the legislature's intent and the existing state of the law that failure to act can be the basis for a felony cruelty-to-animals conviction. The concurrence suggests that Harley would have inevitably been euthanized no matter when Ms....

...But we cannot decide the legal issue before us any differently simply because we may question the State's decision to charge Ms. Brown with felony animal cruelty for this offense or the State's choice not to prosecute Mr. Ward. Judge Altenbernd acknowledges that the version of section 828.12(2) in effect at the time Ms....

...dog, as a matter of personal morality, I believe it would have been ideal if Harley could have spent his final years in an upper-middle-class home surrounded by a loving family and in the care of a great veterinarian. But I am very troubled by the application of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2011), to the facts of this case....

...The legal issue that troubles me in this case is the fact that the applicable statute did not require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Brown was the owner of or otherwise had a legal duty to care for this dog. At the time of this offense, section 828.12(2) was a felony that could be committed by "a person." When your neighbor severely beats your dog with a tire iron for sleeping in his yard, I have no problem with the idea that your neighbor can be a felon. I am the author of State v....

...feit-resistant prescription blank which may be used by practitioners for the purpose of prescribing a controlled substance listed in Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV. This instruction was adopted in 2009. 29.13(b) ANIMAL FIGHTING OR BAITING § 828.122, Fla....

...It is a defense to this crime if [any person is simulating a fight for the purpose of using the simulated fight as part of a motion picture which will be used on television or in a motion picture as long as the crime of cruelty to animals is not committed. (Define animal cruelty. See § 828.12, Fla....

...Instructions in Criminal Cases— Report No. 2007-08, 995 So.2d 489 (Fla.2008). . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. . In instruction 29.13(b), we have included reference to the statutory provision that defines "animal cruelty," section 828.12, Florida Statutes, to make the instruction consistent with section 828.122(9)(a), Florida Statutes....

...5th DCA 2002). However, proof is not required that the accused committed the offense. Pr ice v. State, 776 So.2d 1100 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We conclude that the state established the corpus delicti of the offense. J.P. was charged with animal cruelty under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes, which provides that, a “person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes same to be done,” commits a third degree felony....

PER CURIAM. The 82-year-old appellant was convicted of violating section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which makes it a third degree felony to “intentionally commitf] an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.” In Reynolds v....

...The rule of lenity, section 775.021(1), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that where the language of the Florida Criminal Code “is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.” When Reynolds is read in conjunction with the rule of lenity, for there to be a conviction under section 828.12 there must be an objectively close connection between a defendant’s act and the harm that ultimately befalls an animal; the harm must be “obviously reasonably related” to the defendant’s act....

...After being read his Miranda rights, Archer made several incriminating statements. After securing Archer in the police car, the officers re-entered Archer's home and yard and took pictures of the crime scene. At some later point, police secured the dog's body. Archer was charged by information with violating section 828.12, Florida Statutes (2017) ("Cruelty to Animals")....

...However, we reverse on ground two, related to the suppression issues, and remand for a limited evidentiary hearing or attachment of record evidence that conclusively refutes the allegation of error. The State charged Bartlett with felony cruelty to animals, in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes....

...Simbach fired two shots from a .357 caliber revolver at a dog belonging to Onita Young, both shots striking the dog. The dog suffered from the wounds until it was euthanized by a veterinarian two hours and twenty minutes later. The State charged Simbach with cruelty to animals in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...That section provides: (2) A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree.... § 828.12, Fla. Stat. (1995). Simbach’s motion argued that Simbach cannot be convicted under section 828.12 because he did not intend for the animal to endure a cruel death or any unnecessary pain or suffering....

...The trial court interpreted the statute to require such a specific intent and entered an order which granted Simbach’s motion to dismiss and reduced the charge to misdemeanor cruelty to an animal. We agree with the trial court’s interpretation of section 828.12 as requiring a specific intent to cause a cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering....

and causes unnecessary pain and suffering. Section 828.12, F.S., provides in part that: (1) A person

122(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). 2 . § 828.12(2), Fla. Stat. (2013). 3 .§ 828