Document text
Judge acquits in animal neglect case Man said he couldn't pay veterinarian By CHRIS BRISTOL A Medford man who testified that he could not afford to take his injured puppy to a veterinarian was acquitted of animal neglect. Jackson County Judge Dan Harris pronounced Edward J. Lane not guilty of neglecting the dog, despite a vet's expert testimony that the puppy's gruesome and pungent sores stemmed from a long-term skin infection. Harris came to his decision after comparing the defendant's situation to his own experience involving sick family pets. "We've treated some of our cats ourselves, and sometimes they don't get better," the judge said, adding that he has performed a couple of backyard burials as a result. Lane, 48, was charged with first-degree animal neglect (a Class A misdemeanor) after he told Animal Control officers that the shepherd mix got stuck behind a refrigerator for several days and rubbed itself raw trying to escape. In court Wednesday, Lane testified that he did not have the money to take the dog to a vet. Instead, he consulted a pet store clerk, who suggested using an antibiotic ointment. "I wanted to see what happened," he told the court. "I had no money" for a veterinarian. Animal Control became involved when the dog wandered away, taking refuge in a neighbor's garage. The neighbors mistakenly believed the animal had been struck by a car. In closing arguments, prosecutor Debbie Minder questioned the defendant's story about how it got stuck. Lane and other defense witnesses said the dog never made a sound, even though it was not mute. Minder also focused on the testimony of Dr. Bret Mackel, a Talent veterinarian who had to euthanize the dog after Animal Control brought it in for treatment. Mackel testified that the dog's wounds were the result of a long-term skin infection. He also testified that its emaciated, muscle-wasted condition could not have occurred in just a few days. "No reasonable person would wait any length of time to take this dog to the vet," Minder argued. "It's absolutely criminal negligence what this defendant did." But public defender Eugene Thompson argued his client was a victim of his "economic status." "You're talking about people who are obviously indigent," Thompson said. "They can't even take themselves to the doctor." In his decision, Harris said the state was unable to prove Lane's behavior was a "gross deviation" from the standard of care that a reasonable person would expect. "The defendant attempted to nurse the dog back to health," Harris said, citing the consultation with the pet store clerk. Harris did not mention the testimony of Dr. Mackel. He also declined to grant Minder's request that he consider the lesser charge of second-degree animal neglect. The ruling surprised several prosecution witnesses, including Dr. Mackel. He said many vets are willing to work with pet owners who don't have much to spend. Andy Lane, the county Animal Control officer who rescued the dog, also said he was shocked by the verdict. "That poor dog was nothing but a big infection," Lane said. "Any normal person, they would've rushed him to a vet. I just don't get it." The case was a rare loss for Minder, who successfully prosecuted two men last year for shooting a mule to death with dozens of blasts of birdshot. Judge Harris presided over that case, too. In that case, he opted for fines and community service in lieu of jail time. Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA