State v. Stout
Missouri Court of Appeals
958 S.W.2d 32 (1997)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Peggy Rosenblum adopted a rescue dog named Cody. At some point, Cody escaped his confines and went missing. Dennis Stout (defendant), Rosenblum’s boyfriend, helped her search for the dog. Once the couple found Cody, Stout tied the dog’s leash to the back of his truck and dragged Cody on the mile-long ride home at a speed of approximately 20-25 miles per hour. A witness observed this and called the police. An officer responded and witnessed the event before pulling Stout over. Once stopped, the officer found Cody choking and saw substantial amounts of blood coming from his paws where the road had rubbed them raw. The officer took Cody to a local veterinarian and arrested Stout. The veterinarian found that the padding on Cody’s paws was completely raw and exposed the nerve endings. The State of Missouri (the state) (plaintiff) charged Stout with felony animal abuse under Missouri Revised Statutes Section 578.012.2(2). Under Missouri law, animal abuse is elevated to a felony if there is evidence that the abuse involved was the result of torture or mutilation. At trial, the jury convicted Stout of the charge and sentenced him to six months in jail and to pay a fine. Stout filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Stout then appealed, arguing that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence that he mutilated the dog.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ahrens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.