STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN R. SIMBACH, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appealed a trial court's dismissal of a felony animal cruelty charge against Simbach, who fired two shots at a dog. The appellate court reversed, holding that while the statute requires specific intent to cause cruel death or unnecessary suffering, intent is a question of fact for the jury, not an issue to be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
The court held that section 828.12 does require specific intent to cause a cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. However, intent is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact based on the defendant's acts and surrounding circumstances, not an issue to be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) requires a sworn statement that the facts alleged are true to the best of the affiant's knowledge…
[2] A specific intent to cause cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering is an element of felony animal cruelty under Florida Statutes…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree”
The statutory language of the animal cruelty provision establishing the requirement of intentional conduct resulting in cruel death or unnecessary suffering
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimbach fired two shots from a .357 caliber revolver at a dog belonging to Onita Young, with both shots striking the dog. The dog suffered from its wo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Animal Cruelty cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
The State of Florida appeals the order of the trial court dismissing a charge of felony animal cruelty against John R. Sim-bach. We reverse.
Simbach’s sworn motion,1 filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), sets forth the undisputed facts in this case. Simbach fired two shots from a .357 caliber revolver at a dog belonging to Onita Young, both shots striking the dog. The dog suffered from the wounds until it was euthanized by a veterinarian two hours and twenty minutes later. The State charged Simbach with cruelty to animals in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1995). That section provides:
(2) A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree....
§ 828.12, Fla. Stat. (1995). Simbach’s motion argued that Simbach cannot be convicted under section 828.12 because he did not intend for the animal to endure a cruel death or any unnecessary pain or suffering. The trial court interpreted the statute to require such a specific intent and entered an order which granted Simbach’s motion to dismiss and reduced the charge to misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.
We agree with the trial court’s interpretation of section 828.12 as requiring a specific intent to cause a cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. However, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting Simbach’s motion because intent is not an issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(4). See State v. Carwile, 615 So. 2d 748, 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (intent is usually inferred from the acts of the parties and the surrounding circumstances and must be determined by the trier of fact, who has the opportunity to observe the witnesses).
Reversed and remanded.
GREEN, J., and HAYES, HUGH D., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, Concur. . Simbach’s oath contained within the motion only swore that the facts contained in the motion “are true to the best of my knowledge.” Although this oath does not satisfy Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the State has waived its objection by failing to file a motion to strike. See Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynolds v. State, 842 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2002)…ANSTEAD, C.J. We have for review Reynolds v. State, 784 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), based on express and direct conflict with State v. Simbach, 742 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We conclude that section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (1997), prohibiting cruelty to animals, constitutes a general intent crime, and we approve the First District Court of…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- State v. Carwile, 615 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)