People v. Brian
Superior Court of California, Appellate Division
110 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 168 Cal. Rptr. 105 (1980)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In July 1978, Beverly Joan Brian (plaintiff) left her animals at home while taking a trip. Prior to Brian’s departure, she spoke with her stepfather and a feedstore employee about feeding her animals until she returned home on September 1. However, Brian left town before solidifying the feeding arrangements. During the first month of Brian’s trip, her stepfather paid for the animals’ food and the employee regularly fed the animals. In mid-August, Brian’s stepfather left town and later informed Brian that he would no longer pay for the animals’ food. The employee then began to cover the food expenses. However, Brian experienced car troubles during her trip and was not able to return to her home by September 1. On September 14, the employee ceased providing food for the animals. On September 19, an animal-control officer investigated Brian’s home. The officer found that Brian’s animals appeared dehydrated and malnourished. When Brian returned to town later that day, the State of California (plaintiff) charged Brian with animal neglect pursuant to Penal Code § 597, subd. (b). Brian was convicted and appealed. On appeal, Brian argued that the requisite intent required for a Section 597 conviction was criminal negligence rather than ordinary negligence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Saeta, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
