Attorneys/Judges
| Prosecutor(s): | Christine L. Wilson | | Defense(s): | Jeff Conrad | | Judge(s): | Stuart J. Mylin |
Violation of dog laws
New Providence, PA (US)Incident Date: Tuesday, Mar 10, 2009
County: Lancaster
Charges: Summary
Disposition: Civil penalty imposed
Alleged: Samuel E. King
A New Providence kennel operator charged with animal cruelty and violations of the state's dog law got a split judgment Friday.
District Judge Stuart J. Mylin dismissed the misdemeanor cruelty charge against Samuel E. King, who operates Country Lane Kennels at 223 Refton Road.
But King still faces penalties for 18 summary offenses for violating state dog laws, which he elected not to challenge Friday via his attorney, Jeff Conrad. King is planning to appeal the summary charges in Commonwealth Court.
For each summary offense, King could be fined $50 to $750 and imprisoned up to 90 days.
The animal cruelty charge and some of the summary offenses stem from a March 10 sting operation during which an undercover humane officer from Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals posed as a customer interested in buying a puppy at King's large-scale breeding kennel.
The officer, Tara Loller, testified Friday that she targeted an ailing 9-week-old poodle mix missing "a good bit of its tail," the remainder of which was oozing, bleeding and had jagged pieces of skin hanging from it.
Loller said that King and his veterinarian, Thomas F. Stevenson of Twin Valley Veterinary Clinic in Honey Brook, told her that King had severed the puppy's tail when he was grooming it the previous day.
But Loller testified Friday that when she saw the dog, it was covered in feces and showed no signs of having been groomed.
Assistant District Attorney Christine L. Wilson argued Friday that the dog's wound was a result of King's attempt to dock its tail without anesthetic, sutures or even the proper training to undertake the surgery.
Conrad countered that even if King did cut the dog's tail, Wilson did not prove the act was willful and malicious, as required for the animal cruelty charge to stick.
Mylin agreed with Conrad and dismissed the charge, citing too little evidence.
"They continually overcharge these things," Conrad said of the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement and other agencies that filed citations against King, including Humane League of Lancaster County and the PSPCA. "It looks great in the headlines, but the facts don't add up. What they're doing is inappropriate."
Wilson said it was appropriate for Mylin to dismiss the cruelty charge.
"I support (Mylin's) ruling," Wilson said. "King's kennel license was revoked, which was our main goal."
The Bureau revoked King's license in March, effectively putting him out of the breeding business. King is appealing that revocation to the Bureau.
Meanwhile, King's veterinarian of record, Stevenson, is facing trial for an animal cruelty charge related to a surgical procedure he performed after King allegedly severed the dog's tail by accident March 9.
At a hearing in April, it was unsuccessfully argued that Stevenson appropriately treated the puppy's ailing tail just before Loller bought the dog March 10.
Stevenson testified at his preliminary hearing that he didn't amputate more of the puppy's tail, but only snipped away skin, dried blood and scab. He also denied Loller's charge that he held the dog's back end under steaming water before cutting it with scissors.
In May, Stevenson's license to practice veterinary medicine was suspended pending the outcome of a hearing before the state Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.
Wilson said she expects Stevenson's trial to take place in September. References |
