Warning: Violence against a companion animal is discussed
Question presented: Does the definition of "domestic violence" include "animal cruelty"?
The Facts
Julie Fairbanks dated Charmarke Abdi-Issa for four months. They had an off-again, on-again relationship. She spent the night with him several times. Fairbanks owned a small Chihuahua/Dachshund dog that was her companion and that she treated like family; Abdi-Issa did not like her dog. He took the dog for a walk on October 17, 2018, although Fairbanks begged him not to; he later called Fairbanks to say the dog had gotten loose and he couldn't find her.
Witnesses W. Moe and M. Ludin were walking to their car when they saw a man beating and kicking a small dog. Moe tried to intervene but the assailant threatened him. Moe and Ludin continued to watch the man from across the street, and called the police. When the police arrived, Moe and Ludin identified Abdi-Issa, who was arrested. The dog was taken to the vet and died from blunt force trauma.
Abdi-Issa was charged with first degree animal cruelty - domestic violence with two aggregating factors. He allegedly violated RCW 10.99.020 (domestic violence), RCW 16.52.205 (animal cruelty), and RCW 9A.36.041(4) (4th degree assault). Sentencing aggregators used were RCW 9.94A.535(3)(r) (foreseeable impact on others) and 9.94A.030(54) (deliberate cruelty). Fairbanks became extremely depressed after her dog’s death.
King County Superior Court docket #18-1-06941-2 (filed 10/18/2018, jury trial 5/14/2019). He was found guilty on 5/31/2019 and was sentenced to 12 months for the animal cruelty charge and an additional 6 months for the enhancements. In addition, he was the subject of a no-contact order for 1 year. During the trial, Ludin testified that she now suffers from PTSD as a result of witnessing the abuse.
Court of Appeals Division I docket #80024-8 (filed 6/04/2019, opinion released 2/16/2021). Defendant's guilty verdict was vacated as to the domestic violence designation, the no-contact order and the impact on others aggregator, effectively reducing his sentence to 12 months.
Washington State Supreme Court docket #99581-8 (appeal filed 2/19/2021, opinion released 2/17/2022). The Court reinstated the domestic violence designation and the sentencing enhancements.
Legal Arguments in the Supreme Court opinion included:
1. Is animal cruelty a crime of domestic violence?
RCW 10.99.020 defines domestic violence as a crime committed by one intimate partner against another. The crimes listed in the statute are explicitly illustrative, not exhaustive. The State's Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 broadened the definition of victim:
A “victim” may be “any person who has sustained emotional, psychological, physical, or financial injury to person or property as a direct result of the crime charged.” The plain language of RCW 10.99.020 applies to ANY crime committed against another person in an intimate partner relationship. The domestic violence act does not create new crimes, it simply emphasizes the need to enforce existing criminal statutes in such a way that victims of domestic violence are protected. Defendant argued that animals, as property, are not listed in the examples of crimes in RCW 10.99.020. However, burglary and malicious mischief are listed and are examples of crimes against property. In addition, the legislature stated in 2009 that the policy of the state is to give broad protections to victims of domestic violence, and cited to research showing a strong link between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence. Finally, all three courts cited State v. Goodman, 108 Wn. App. 355 (2001), an arson case involving a jealous partner who burned down his wife's house knowing her dog was in it. Goodman argued the arson could not be considered a crime of domestic violence because it was committed against their jointly owned marital property and not directly against his wife. In rejecting Goodman’s argument, the appellate court noted that “the definition of a domestic violence victim is broader than the definition of one whose property is destroyed."
2. Should sentencing aggregators have been applied?
The Supreme Court found that Abdi-Issa'a actions involved a destructive and foreseeable impact on persons other than the victim and therefore RCW 9.94A.535(3)(r) can be applied. Ludin now has PTSD as a result of observing the defendant's actions. Abdi-Issa argued that just because the crime was committed in public didn’t mean aggregation applies. RCW 9.94A.030(54) allows another aggregator. Fairbanks was a victim of the defendant's crime - as the dog's owner, she had sustained an injury.
In sum, the Supreme Court held that violence against a companion animal can be domestic violence. And witnesses to such cruelty can be harmed by the violence, thereby giving the prosecution opportunities to increase sentences and other punitive measures. I believe the Supreme Court did not reach the question of the no-contact order between Fairbanks and the defendant as the one-year mark had passed (= moot).
State v. Abdi-Issa, 199 Wn. 2d 163 (2/17/2022)