Judge Orders Second Dog Put Down Following Cat Attack

news1@ulyssesnews.com

The second of two dogs involved in a March 6 attack on a local cat and her kittens was ordered euthanized following a short trial May 19, in Ulysses Municipal Court.

Sueños, an American Bully – a breed of Pitbull - owned by Emilia Brown was one of two animals involved in a March 6 attack on a cat and her kittens at a home in the 800 block of North College Street. The other dog, also an American Bully and owned by Rafael Rodriguez, was euthanized following a May 5 municipal court trial. Both animals were kept at the same home on South Sullivan Street.

Brown was represented by attorney Barbara Nash of Liberal, who initially requested a change of venue because municipal court judge Peggy Alford presided over the trial of Rodriguez, the owner of the other dog accused in the attack. City Attorney Lynn Koehn asked if there was any legal reason why she was asking for a change of venue, and Nash replied, “Based on the fact the co-defendant (Rodriguez) already had his trial before the same court (Brown) feels the court is biased and would like a change of venue,” Nash said.

Koehn objected, saying there was not a legal basis, and the court would have the ability to separate the cases, requesting to proceed to trial.

“Mrs. Nash, the court is going to deny your motion for change of venue,” Alford said, asking if Nash needed more time to prepare or if she could proceed.

Koehn reminded Brown that if the case was continued and she was convicted, attorney fees and impound fees would be increased. After a short consultation with Nash, Brown agreed to continue with the trial.

Koehn called Animal Control Officer Anne Langston as his first witness, and she related the March 6 incident from her perspective.

Langston responded to a report of two dogs on Ulysses Parkway and Wheat Avenue and located the animals in the 800 block of North College Street. She said she recognized the dogs from past experiences with them and said she knew the dog owners.

The dogs were three-quarters of a mile from their residence at the time of the incident, were not restrained, their owners were not on scene and the dogs were standing over a deceased cat belonging to Deanna Pointer. Langston secured the dogs in her truck without incident.

Langston described the cat as freshly deceased with internal injuries, and no blood was visible. Four kittens were located nearby, two were still alive and two were dead, and Langston said she took the two live kittens to a veterinarian because their injuries were severe.

Koehn presented a picture of the deceased cats taken from her bodycam as Exhibit A without objection. But Nash did object when Koehn asked Langston if she was able to ascertain what the cause of death was.

“She doesn’t have a veterinary degree, she can’t make a determination as to cause of death,” Nash said in her objection. “She didn’t even examine the animal; she just handed it over to who she thought was the owner.”

Koehn said that Langston could testify based on her training and experience what her personal belief is, and the court could give it whatever weight and credibility it would like to.

Alford overruled the objection.

Langston said Sueños had a superficial scratch on his right pectoral area and blood droplets on his left front paw, and couldn’t recall if there was blood on the sidewalk around the cat.

Rodriguez and Brown later arrived on scene after noticing Langston’s truck while they were out looking for the dogs. Langston later met them at an address on South Sullivan Street where she issued a citation to both.

Upon cross-examination, Nash asked Langston if she observed a cat in any of the dogs’ mouth, to which she replied she did not. Langston also noted the dogs were not aggressive toward her.

Nash asked if the dogs could have been injured in their escape from the kennel, and Langston said she did not inspect the kennel. When asked by Nash if she determined the blood on the dog’s paw was dog or cat blood, Langston said no.

“So, you have no witnesses that saw either dog with a cat in its mouth, correct?” Nash asked Langston. She said that was correct.

“So, in your investigation to determine whether or not Miss Brown took all necessary steps to ensure her dog was enclosed in a pen, you didn’t actually do that, did you?” Nash asked.

“No,” Langston replied.

“Why not?” Nash retorted.

“Because they (Brown and Rodriguez) didn’t fight the fact when I explained to them their dogs had killed some kittens, they both kind of shook their heads and seemed to accept that fact at the time,” Langston said, adding Brown did not make any statements admitting Sueños was vicious.

Langston said last winter, both dogs were involved in another vicious dog case with witnesses who identified them. Both dogs were impounded and returned to the owners at that time.

Nash and Koehn both questioned cat owner Deanna Pointer who said she cared for the cats but they were outdoor cats. She also indicated she had not interacted with the cats that day and did not see or hear the attack by the dogs and had not ever seen the dogs.

Nash questioned Brown, who said the dog was not aggressive, but did not argue when Langston issued a citation. Nash asked her why she didn’t say anything.

“She was accompanied by a police officer, and my experience when I’ve been advised in the past, it’s never the best idea to argue with an officer on duty if there’s an incident, the best thing to do is argue the case in court,” Brown said.

‘So, your silence wasn’t admission?” Nash asked, to which Brown said no.

Koehn asked Brown if she was aware of an incident where Sueños was alleged to be a vicious dog, and Brown said five dogs were involved that particular incident and she didn’t know which of the dogs were “allegedly vicious.”

Koehn said at any point in time, Brown could have gone to the shelter to check on the dog, but did not ask or call the shelter to check on the animal. He asked her why.

“I assume they’re contained and they’re safe and cared for,” Brown said.

Koehn admitted the case was circumstantial because there is no door cameras or witnesses, and it was obvious Brown knew her dog was out.

“She’s the owner of the dog, she knew it was at large, that’s been well established,” Koehn said in his closing argument. “The circumstantial evidence part, judge, is regarding the vicious dog. Mrs.  Langston testified all cats that were injured were still warm to the touch, some were still breathing, actually all four of the kittens were still alive and had to be euthanized, that rigormortis hadn’t set in and the dogs were standing over the momma cat when she pulled up,” Koehn said.

He said there was blood on the dog’s paw, and admitted it’s not known where the blood came from, but circumstantial evidence suggests it came from the kittens found on scene.

“No other dogs or other animals were found in the vicinity of where this occurred, judge, and circumstantial evidence is more than enough to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having a dog that was vicious. It is unfortunate but it is the reality of where this case is at.”

Nash reiterated there was no witness as to which dog caused the injuries to the animals.

“Based on the evidence, and based on the testimony of the officer who did not take blood from the dogs to see which dog had cat blood on it or which dog was bleeding because it had injuries itself shows the city lacks evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sueños caused any injuries to either one of the animals that were deceased,” Nash said. “The dog was being housed in a kennel, and it looks like the dog got out of the kennel, and there’s no testimony the dog didn’t injure itself in its attempt to escape from the kennel and free itself, so we don’t know because they didn’t take the blood from the dog to see if it was cat blood or dog blood.”

Alford ruled the dog was running at large and by circumstantial evidence is considered a vicious dog.

Koehn said that because of the continued issue with the dog, he requested it be euthanized.

“I understand it’s Miss Brown’s dog and I understand it’s one of her ‘children,’ but when we’re put on this kind of a notice, as far as the city and representing the city, that’s my request because I’m worried about the future incidents that could occur in this town,” Koehn said. “If it was a one-time isolated incident and we weren’t dealing with the same dogs that were getting out again and again, I may have a different opinion, but unfortunately that’s not where we’re at in Miss Brown’s case.”

Brown was given the chance to appeal and stay the euthanization for 14 days, but the fees would continue to add up with a $500 cash only appeal bond to be filed with the city clerk who would file with the district court.

Nash requested on behalf of Brown to not put the dog down, saying that Brown could assure the court she could move the dog to an area where it won’t be a threat to anyone.

“We just ask to give her an opportunity to find shelter for the dog somewhere outside the city limits,” Nash said.

The judge granted Koehn’s motion for euthanization.

The charge comes with a 30-day jail sentence suspended upon payment of full fees and fines, which can be paid $50 per month.