State v. Crow

The legislature explicitly found and declared that “[a]nimals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear,” ORS 167.332(1) and that the principal purpose was to protect individual animals from further abuse and neglect, and to deter animal abuse and neglect in the first place and that the “prohibition on possessing a particular genus of animal was designed so that the possession ban is customized to protect the particular class of animals against which the defendant’s crime was committed, not to protect the public generally” which shows that the roots of the cruelty laws have been interested in “protecting individual animals themselves from suffering.” State v. Nix, 355 Or 777 (2014).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for 13 counts of unlawful possession of an animal by a person previously convicted of second-degree animal neglect. Defendant assigned error to the trial court allowing 13 separate convictions for unlawful possession of an animal. On appeal, Defendant argued that “the public is the single collective victim of defendant’s violation of ORS 167.332(1)(a)” and that it is analogous to the unlawful possession of multiple firearms by a felon under ORS 166.270. In response, the State argued that animals are living beings that can be victims of crime and that legislature intended for each animal unlawfully possessed to be considered a separate victim of the crime, justifying separate convictions.” The legislature explicitly found and declared that “[a]nimals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear,” ORS 167.332(1) and that the principal purpose was to protect individual animals from further abuse and neglect, and to deter animal abuse and neglect in the first place and that the “prohibition on possessing a particular genus of animal was designed so that the possession ban is customized to protect the particular class of animals against which the defendant’s crime was committed, not to protect the public generally” which shows that the roots of the cruelty laws have been interested in “protecting individual animals themselves from suffering.” State v. Nix, 355 Or 777 (2014). The Court held that the context, text, and legislative history show that ORS 167.332(1) is intended for individual animals. Affirmed.