People v. Zamora

2020 IL App (1st) 172011

175 N.E.3d 700

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Juan ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-17-2011

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.

Opinion filed September 29, 2020

Rehearing denied October 22, 2020

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Alexander G. Muntges, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, David H. Iskowich, and David G. Myers, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Juan Zamora was found guilty of failing to provide humane care and treatment for, and abusing, his 10 dogs, in violation of the Humane Care for Animals Act (Act). 510 ILCS 70/3(a)(4), 3.01 (West 2014). On appeal, defendant asserts the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the evidence generally showed he treated his dogs well and they had not sustained physical or psychological injuries. He also contends that section 3(a)(4) of the Act, which criminalizes the failure to provide "humane care and treatment," is unconstitutionally vague. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 2 I. Background

¶ 3 The State charged defendant with three counts of violating the Act and ultimately proceeded to trial on two counts. Specifically, the State alleged that defendant "knowingly failed to provide humane care and treatment for each of the ten (10) pit bull mix dogs *** in his care or control," and had previously been convicted of the same offense. 510 ILCS 70/3(a)(4) (West 2014). Additionally, the State alleged that defendant committed animal cruelty in that he "knowingly beat, cruelly treated, tormented, starved, overworked, or otherwise abused ten (10) animals *** to wit: kept the animals caged or chained in filthy conditions and without access to food or water," and had previously been convicted of the same offense. 510 ILCS 70/3.01 (West 2014). The State subsequently amended the latter count by striking allegations that he "beat" and "starved" the dogs.

¶ 4 At trial, Officer Joseph Chausse, the State's sole witness, testified that he was assigned to the animal crimes team and received special training on dogs. His training included instruction on their living environment, crimes and cruelty against them, and devices they were subjected to. For example, heavy chains with springs were used on dogs being trained for dog fighting. He also learned about treadmills used to facilitate dog fighting. Furthermore, he learned to rate the weight and size of a dog on a scale from one to five.

¶ 5 On June 4, 2015, Officer Chausse's team executed a search warrant at defendant's house (9741 South Avenue L). Only defendant's 10 dogs were home. In the basement, Officer Chausse observed "different sections of the basement that were cordoned off by wood paneling." These sections contained dogs tethered to thick, heavy chains. Officer Chausse acknowledged, however, that he did not actually touch, measure or weigh those chains. Furthermore, he did not see any dogs with neck injuries from wearing too heavy of a chain. Springs were also located.

¶ 6 Four dogs were contained inside the cordoned off sections, standing on newspaper that was saturated with urine and feces. Officer Chausse testified that he a few piles of feces but did not know precisely how many piles. Additionally, three smaller dogs were in carrying cages lined with hay. One cage holding two puppies contained many pieces of feces. Officer Chausse acknowledged that he did not see any dogs with feces on their bodies or any emaciated or dehydrated dogs and that one photograph depicted food and water. Moreover, Officer Chausse found a breeding harness, used by tethering both dogs to the harness until they mate, as well as a commercial-grade treadmill and a homemade treadmill. In the yard, other dogs were inside 10-foot by 4-foot cages that had roofs with openings. The cages lacked a solid floor so that bodily waste would go right through the cage to the ground. According to Officer Chausse, "it was kind of hard for them to walk around" without a flat surface. Photographs of the dogs housed outdoors were also admitted into evidence.

¶ 7 Chicago Animal Care and Control took all the dogs into custody for physical and psychological evaluations. No evidence was presented as to the results. In addition, Officer Chausse acknowledged that he did not apply the aforementioned scale to the dogs that day and saw no evidence that any dog was overworked. When asked on cross-examination whether he had seen any evidence that defendant "tormented" these animals, Officer Chausse responded affirmatively, citing the heavy chains, the urine-saturated paper and the numerous pieces of feces. All photographs of the scene were admitted into evidence.

¶ 8 Officer Chausse further testified that at about 3:40 a.m. on June 8, 2015, he went to the police station and met defendant, who said he owned all the pit bulls found at his home. He purchased one dog and obtained the others from a known dog fighter. In addition, defendant explained that he built the cages in the basement to separate the dogs so they would not tackle each other, and that the chains constricted the dogs within the makeshift cages. Defendant also explained that he purchased one treadmill, made the other one himself and exercised each dog for 20 minutes per day. He used the harness to breed his dogs. Furthermore, defendant acknowledged that one dog had a scar on its muzzle from fighting with the other dogs, while another dog had a scar on its neck because a veterinarian removed its vocal cords.

¶ 9 The trial court denied defendant's motion for a directed finding and the defense rested without presenting any evidence.

¶ 10 The trial court found Officer Chausse testified clearly and credibly as to his experience, observations and discussion with defendant. Although the court appreciated defense counsel's argument that there was no evidence of psychological or physical injury to the dogs, the court found that "this is not humane care and treatment. This is abuse." In reaching this conclusion, the court noted the quantity of dogs, the lack of cage floors, the chains, the makeshift cages, the treadmills and the harness. The court stated, "I see the chains whatever weight they are." Moreover, the court stated, "This is not how you treat dogs, put them in a basement with a bunch of newspapers and nothing else and where they, you know, have to go to the bathroom on this and then they're just chained in those certain areas, with the types of chains and the type of cages." The trial court subsequently denied defendant's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to concurrent year-long prison terms.

¶ 11 II. Analysis

¶ 12 A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 13 On appeal, defendant first asserts the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the evidence largely showed that he was a considerate dog owner with healthy dogs.

¶ 14 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Mehta , 2020 IL App (3d) 180020, ¶ 14, 441 Ill.Dec. 273, 156 N.E.3d 608. We must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution. Id. The testimony of a single, credible witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. People v. Smith , 185 Ill. 2d 532, 541, 236 Ill.Dec. 779, 708 N.E.2d 365 (1999). Furthermore, the trier of fact is not required to disregard inferences that flow from the evidence. People v. Lee , 2015 IL App (1st)132059, ¶ 50, 397 Ill.Dec. 343, 41 N.E.3d 994.

¶ 15 Section 3(a)(4) of the Act states that "[e]ach owner shall provide for each of his or her animals *** humane care and treatment." 510 ILCS 70/3(a)(4) (West 2014). While section 3 does not define "humane care and treatment," courts use common sense in determining whether an animal was deprived of this entitlement. People v. Kirkpatrick , 2020 IL App (5th) 160422, ¶ 47, 439 Ill.Dec. 539, 148 N.E.3d 279. Additionally, evidence that an animal's owner failed to consider the animal's health and well-being as a person of ordinary intelligence would have done is sufficient to establish that the animal was deprived of humane treatment and care. Id. ¶ 50. Furthermore, section 3.01(a) of the Act states that "[n]o person or owner may beat, cruelly treat, torment, starve, overwork or otherwise abuse any animal." 510 ILCS 70/3.01(a) (West 2014).

¶ 16 Here, the evidence shows that defendant failed to provide his dogs with humane care and treatment. Specifically, the dogs that defendant housed outside lacked appropriate cage floors. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the photographs of the dogs resting their paws on the slim wooden beams supporting the cages do not rebut Officer Chausse's testimony that it was difficult for the dogs to walk solely on the metal wire. In the basement, some of the dogs were in makeshift cages.

¶ 17 Furthermore, defendant allowed the dogs' bodily waste to accumulate. On appeal, defendant argues, "[l]ife teaches that, when dogs drink water and eat food, they will eventually expel the same in the form of urine and feces." Yet, defendant appears to have missed the lesson that dog owners must take measures to properly dispose of their dogs' waste because the dogs cannot do it for themselves. While Officer Chausse's team may not have made a point of photographing every misplaced piece of feces Officer Chausse saw, the trial court was nonetheless entitled to find his testimony regarding the dogs' bodily waste was credible. The photographs also show that conditions were filthy.

¶ 18 Defendant's omissions in care and treatment did not reflect compassion or...