State v. Gerard, Minn.Ct.App., 6/24/2013. Mr. Gerard shot his neighbor’s cat. It seems, or so Mr. Gerard believed, although he never actually saw the cat do this – well, at least not to the chickens; Mr. Gerard did say that he’d seen the cat kill the turkeys - that the cat liked Mr. Gerard’s young turkeys and chickens. To kill and eat them, that is. Well, when the deputy arrived first to find the expiring, bloodied cat in the arms of its loving parents, and, second, to see Mr. Gerard’s chicken coop (full of chickens one supposes although the court doesn’t say), he could find no fault with Mr. Gerard’s actions. He then put the cat out of its misery and sometime later he wrote an affidavit that said that Mr. Gerard had been justified in killing the cat.
The state took a dim view of all this, and charged Mr. Gerard with felony unjustifiably killing the cat, (whose name we never learn. We did learn that the cat was white, and wore a dark collar with a bell on it, although apparently neither a big nor loud enough bell.) Mr.. Gerard moved to dismiss, saying that there was insufficient probable cause, in support of which he produced the deputy’s affidavit. The trial court granted the defense motion and the state took an appeal.
And got a reversal. The court of appeals said that the deputy’s opinion that Mr. Gerard was justified in killing the cat was inadmissible lay opinion. And, that lay opinion about a point of law – whether Mr. Gerard was justified in shooting the cat – was not helpful to the jury. Moreover, the state had produced enough evidence at the probable cause hearing that Mr. Gerard could have used a nonlethal means to protect his chickens, from which a jury could conclude that the killing was unjustified.
Mr. Gerard goes back to face trial. Shoo, kitty.
No comments:
Post a Comment