People v. Kirkpatrick

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of 4 counts of practicing veterinarian medicine without a valid license, 6 counts of violating an animal owner's duties, and 1 count of aggravated cruelty to a companion animal. Defendant had practiced as a veterinarian for 22 years but failed to renew her license; her license was then suspended when she resumed practicing before reinstatement. Police found her home in deplorable condition, with multiple animals and animal carcasses inside the home. In the aggravated cruelty to a companion animal count, State alleged that Defendant had performed a surgical procedure on a dog in an unsterile manner that led to the dog's death.No evidence at trial supported an inference that Defendant's conscious purpose was to kill or seriously injure the dog. Although evidence showed that Defendant clearly acted recklessly and perhaps acted knowingly, such evidence is insufficient to show that she acted with the specific intent that the death actually occur.Facts do not justify the application of the rule of presumed malice and intent. (BOIE, concurring; CATES, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)