Senate Bill S2603

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S2603

SPONSOR: ADDABBO
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to includ-
ing use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument as an aggravated
cruelty offense

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

Because of the difficulty inherent in proving "serious physical injury"
(SPI) to companion animals, this legislation would elevate the penalty
for causing physical injury to such animals through, use of a deadly
weapon or dangerous instrument while intending to cause serious physical
injury.

 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

Section 1: Amends Section 353-a of the agriculture and markets law to
provide that a person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when
such person, with no justifiable purpose, causes physical injury to a
              

companion animal by means of a deadly weapon as defined in subdivision
twelve of section 10.00 of the penal law, or by means of a dangerous
instrument as defined in subdivision thirteen of section 10.00 of the
penal law, while acting with intent to kill or cause serious physical
injury to such companion animal.

Section 2: Establishes the effective date

 
JUSTIFICATION:

When currently proving Aggravated Animal Cruelty pursuant to AML 353-a,
one element that must be proven is that the animal suffered serious
physical injury (SPI) or death. The definition of SPI has been held to
be the same that applies to human assault cases pursuant to Penal Law §
10.00(10), which defines SPI as "physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."

Proving SPI in human injury cases is often established through the
testimony of the victim as to his or her ongoing symptoms, pain and/or
other impairment as compared to a prior status. Since such testimony is
impossible for animals, requiring the same level of proof often results
in the inability to prove SPI absent extreme injury (i.e. loss of a body
part).

Over the course of the past nine years during which the ASPCA has been
partnered with the NYPD, the ASPCA has treated hundreds of animals who
have been intentionally injured by a variety of objects that would fall
under the definition of dangerous instruments or deadly weapons.  These
include guns, knives, scissors, bats, sticks, boots, furniture, and even
leashes used to hang animals. In many of these cases the injuries docu-
mented by veterinarians, although extremely painful, did not rise to the
level of provable SPI.

Sometimes this was because of a delay between the time that the injury
was inflicted and the examination of the animal, resulting in a loss of
valuable forensic evidence that could otherwise demonstrate a lasting
injury. Other times, especially in animals suffering from traumatic
brain injuries, it was because the animal recovered from its injuries
without any demonstratable loss or impairment of function. However,
despite a clear and violent intent of the perpetrator to cause SPI or
death to the animal, without proof of SPI, the most that could be
charged is a misdemeanor. This means that a person who unjustifiably
shoots a dog and kills it can be charged with a felony, but if the dog
survives, faces only a misdemeanor animal cruelty charge.

The proposed change to this statute is not only consistent with Penal
Law section 120.05, which permits felony charges when physical injury is
Inflicted upon a person by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instru-
ment, but also acknowledges that the act itself of unjustifiably trying
to cause death or SPI to an animal with a dangerous instrument or deadly
weapon should be punishable as a felony and not depend solely on whether
the animal is able to fully recover from its injuries. This would allow
for perpetrators who try, but fail to kill an animal to be punished
equally to those that try and succeed.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2024: S6913 - Referred to Agriculture

 
FISCAL IMPLICANTIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act would take effect immediately.