Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

791 N.E.2d 257

Hall v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided July 10, 2003

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 2003-07-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 2008

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-07-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BAKER, Judge,

¶1dissenting.

¶2The first time I went rabbit hunting— and the next to last—I was accompanied by an accomplished sportsman and family friend who was undoubtedly perturbed at how long I stalked my prey before discharging my shotgun in the direction of the poor wretch. As I was too close to the creature, we found little more of my quarry than the tail. Was that felony mutilation? I think not.

¶3Although the majority opines that multiple shots will not necessarily constitute mutilation, it maintains that it possibly could. While I do not condone shooting cats, in this instance it was not otherwise illegal. The rapidity with which Chris and Mark dispatched the feline demonstrates that other than being either incompetent marksmen or intending to quickly destroy the pitiful animal, their acts were not such as prohibited by statute. Thus, I would reverse their class A misdemeanor convictions for cruelty to an animal.

/791/ne2d/257 · .json · Public domain