Case Against Northfield Woman Accused of Killing Dogs Proceeds to Trial: Pick of Our Patches

In spite of the defense's claims that animal cruelty statutes used are unconstitutional, the case of Dayna Bell will go forward to trial.

Over strenuous objections from the defense, a 61-year-old Northfield woman accused of drowning and freezing dogs will go to trial this week.

Last April, Dayna Kristine Bell, a licensed breeder from the Sciota Township, was charged with 16 counts of animal cruelty for allegedly killing dogs at her kennel.

Jury selection was scheduled to begin on Monday, though Defense Attorney Robert D. Miller has argued that animal cruelty statutes are written too vaguely to pass constitutional muster.

The statute, MN S 343.21, states "No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal or animals, or any act tending to produce cruelty to animals." Cruelty is defined as "every act, omission, or neglect which causes or permits unnecessary or unjustifiable pain, suffering or death." The law applies to pets or companion animals, which are described as "any animal owned, possessed by, cared for or controlled by a person for the present of future enjoyment of that person or another as a pet or companion, or any stray pet or stray companion animal."

According to Miller, this language is not explicit enough to give fair warning to the average citizen.

"Should the farmer, with four barn cats, be charged with ten felonies if he places an unwanted (and unaffordable) litter of ten kittens in a weighted sack and tosses them into the river?" Miller wrote in a motion to dismiss the case. "While crude and immoral the subject statute does not adequately tell her that she couldn't do so legally."

In the absence of specific guidance from the law, Miller turned to Webster's Dictionary, which defines "cruelty" as "animal-like or savage cruelty that is altogether unfeeling…the complete absence of those qualities expected of a civilized human being." 

The common definition fails to draw a reasonably clear line between lawful and unlawful conduct, Miller argued, which leaves a breeder or farmer to guess as to what is and isn't considered cruel before the law.

He further argued that the case should be dismissed for lack of probable cause, since the dogs in question were not "companion animals."

"The statute wasn't designed to pertain to dog breeders, rather, it was enacted to protect animals which are truly pets in the various households in Minnesota," Miller wrote, again turning to Webster's for aid. "A pet has been defined as 'an animal that is tamed or domesticated and kept as a companion or treated with fondness.' There is no special bond or enjoyment since they are to be sold at the earliest opportunity." 

On Jan. 14 Judge Tim Wermager slapped down the motion, ruling that the the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and that it did indeed apply to Bell. The common definition of cruelty is sufficient, he wrote, and ordinary people would have no trouble understanding what conduct is prohibited by the law.

"The court finds the defendant's actions to be completely absent of those qualities expected of a civilized human being. The alleged actions are unfeeling, savage, outrageous, extreme, atrocious and go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community" Wermager wrote. "Indeed it strains credulity to believe any human being would believe that the defendant's alleged acts were somehow 'justifiable.'"

If convicted, each charge against Bell carries a maximum of two years in prison and fines of up to $5,000.

RON STEIGER March 19, 2013 at 06:14 AM
WELL COVERED THANKS! The state of PA has passed strong law to drive out cruel kitten & puppy breeders. MN lawmaker committees refuse to make better law and stop the suffering! THE END RESULT WILL BE THE CRUEL BREEDERS THAT ARE DRIVEN OUT OF PA AND OTHER HUMANE LAW STATES WILL NOW MOVE TO MN. THE CRIMINALL TRIALS FOR THESE CRUEL BREEDERS & THOSE THAT SELL THEM, WILL COST THE MN TAXPAYER MILLIONS. REFERENCE TO A MN MILL TRIAL costs, THAT LASTED 6 MONTHS IS: KATHY JO BAUCK VS STATE OF MINNESOTA ....... two trials, two jury convictions BUT no SIGNIFICANT punishmeNt by SUSPECT TRIAL COURT judge Wally Senyk means she & new her business partners are still in business! Watch out families who buy petshop, net, and meet me on the side of the road sellers of puppies & kittens - your kids will be harmed when that puppy or kitten gets sick, runs up a hugh vet bill and then dies1 YOUR KIDS WILL THIK ITS THEIR-YOUR FAULT. ---- MAKE LAWS BANNING LARGE AND OTHER CRIEL BREEDERS - TELL YOU CHURH TO HELP AS LAW MAKERS AFTER 9 YEARS OF ANIMAL PROTECTORS TRYING TO MAKE PROTECTIONS SHOW NO RESPONSIBILITY OR MORAL COMPAS FOR PROTECTING KITTEN, PUPPIES, CATS, DOGS OR YOUR CHILDREN! STOP THEM, STOP THE SUFFERING! CALL 3 lawmakers today then 3 media source too.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something