The North Carolina Court of Appeals today overturned littering charges against two animal rights workers in Hertford County who had been convicted last year of the lesser offenses after a high-profile trial on allegations of animal cruelty.
Essentially, the littering charges against Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook were overturned because the prosecution failed to prove that a Dumpster is not the proper place for trash.
Hinkle and Cook were employed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals when they were caught June 15, 2005, dumping euthanized animals into a trash bin at a shopping center in Ahoskie, N.C.
They had faced 21 charges of felony animal cruelty, seven counts of littering and three counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. But on Feb. 1, 2007, Superior Court Judge Cy Grant reduced the charges to eight misdemeanor charges before the jury began to deliberate. He said the state failed to prove malice and any specific motive, necessary elements for the felony charges. He also dropped the three charges of obtaining property by false pretenses against Cook.
The judge then further reduced the charges to eight counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty and one count of littering to make jury deliberations more manageable.
The jury found the pair guilty of the littering charge. It took the jury 3½ hours to reach its unanimous verdict.
Each was given a 10-day suspended sentence, 12 months of supervised probation, 50 hours of community service and a $1,000 fine. They were also to split the $5,975 in restitution costs.
In the Court of Appeals opinion, Judge Rick Elmore said the defendants’ actions on June 15, 2005, were undisputed.
The animals had been picked up as part of PETA’s Community Animal Project from Bertie County’s animal shelter and the Ahoskie Animal Hospital. Bertie and animal hospital officials said they thought an effort would be made to put the animals up for adoption.
During the trial, the defendants took the stand and apologized for dumping the euthanized animals but said it was a very hot day and the smell in their van was unbearable. Hinkle also admitted using the trash bin at least one other time to dump dead animals.
Elmore said that the trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the littering charges because the prosecution failed to present substantial evidence that the Dumpster used on June 15 was not a litter receptacle.
Based on the prosecution’s reading of the law, Elmore wrote that throwing away a used coffee cup in a trash can at the mall would be considered littering.
“Essential to the crime of littering is that the litter be placed somewhere other than a litter receptacle,” he wrote.
With the judgments vacated against both defendants, the orders of restitution are also vacated, according to the opinion.
“Today’s unanimous ruling by the Court of Appeals ends the long, drawn-out, and needless legal proceedings endured by two young people who simply performed the humanitarian act of putting animals out of their misery at the request of government agencies and private individuals in North Carolina,” said Heather Carlson, PETA’s media liaison, in an e-mail. “The two workers were providing a humane release to animals who had no future prospects, and the trial never should have happened.”
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
They Should be Punished!
These two people make me sick. Lock them up and throw away the key!
Theft ???
Wonder why they were not charged with theft or whatever could be charged for using a dumpster they had not helped pay for. Looks like the dumpster was at a shopping center for use and paid for by the businesses there and not necessarily for general public use. I would not expect to be able to take my trash to a local shopping center and put it in their dumpster, why should PETA.
there is no justice....
PETA made these trips for years, and killed animals they picked up for years-and in all these years, NO animal they picked up was adoptable?
Dear PETA workers, the Court of Appeals may have let you off the hook, but there is a very special place for people that "USE" animals the way PETA does-in it for the money and the publicity...I hope every time you try to sleep you see those puppies and kittens in the dumpster in black trash bags-you never gave them a chance--I don't think you deserve one either...
It re-enforces My view of Peta
People eating tasty animals...I wonder if a group would get a dog, kill it and eat it would be punished. This whole process and the "logic" behind it as told by Peta is sickening. After reading this and other stories for the last few years, I make a point of getting in their face when they get in mine. They make me sick and I wish I could hurl when I approach them...
I think I understand now
If PETA kills defenseless animals and throws the dead animals in a dumpster, thats OK. If anyone else kills one and uses every part of that animal except the Moo or the Onk then it's wrong. It's PETA's way or the wrong way!
so peta is like 007, a license to kill, they're pet murderers
A couple of quotes from the article "prosecution failed to prove that a Dumpster is not the proper place for trash" and "Today’s unanimous ruling by the Court of Appeals ends the long, drawn-out, and needless legal proceedings endured by two young people who simply performed the humanitarian act of putting animals out of their misery at the request of government agencies and private individuals in North Carolina,” said Heather Carlson, PETA’s media liaison, in an e-mail. “The two workers were providing a humane release to animals who had no future prospects, and the trial never should have happened.” So, they "young people" brainwashed by peta can kill pets, but if you do then you'll be charged with animal cruelty. peta is calling pet ownership, "animal adoption", so I guess if your kids school bus driver decides your kids stink, they can put them to sleep? Of course the "trash" in this case is an animal that they just murdered. Why is that not quite the same thing as a used coffee cup in my mind? It's time to chase People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area out of the area.
WTF????
Did I read that right? "The prosecution failed to prove that a dumpster is the proper place for trash?" No wonder the world is such a mess with this kind of logic, or lack thereof, going on---spin it any way you want--PETA is a mouthpiece for a bunch of idiots--that do things like euthenize animals & throw them in trash bins--real ethical treatment there!!!!
RE Sense
Suppose you are correct there..I did notice that some of the charges were reduced to make the deliberations easier for the jury. Per this story charges specifying "improper disposal of corpses", was not one of the original charges filed, & therefore not reduced to a lesser charge. It appears to be a far more logical charge to file, & get a conviction. I have to admit that I do not know if there is such a law, in NC..maybe littering is the next closest thing. If it is not, then the prosecutor made a mistake in filing not only a possibly lesser charge, but one he is unable to prove legally..have to ponder this one some more..Either way the fact remains that a "corpse" was legally addressed as "trash". Have to ponder this one some more later..Combined with my taxes, I think I may need an Excedrin..
Peta Fan
The judge is probably a Peta supporter.
As a supporter of relieving suffering in sub-standard shelters
I'm saddened by this whole affair. PeTA's ideals were laudible although its lack of oversight and organizational structure left those 2 kids negligently unsupervised to demonstrate a SEVERE lack of good judgement.
While PeTA has made organizational corrections, its unfortunate that the municipalities could not come up with some realistic and appropriate legal penalty against the organization so that no one would be able to make the ridiculous claim that PeTA walked away from this horrible situation unscathed.
The resulting negative publicity will plague the organization from this day forth and will make it that much harder to fight the deplorable abuses that occur in the NC shelters and against hunting dogs in our own neighborhoods for a very long time. The court of public opinion is a harsh judge, particularly when people choose to remain blissfully ignorant of intentions and cold realities.
Argument makes sense
The argument makes sense in the context that the conviction was for littering. It wouldn't make sense of the conviction was for improperly disposing of a body.
let me guess
Since they are PETA they get special treatment, anyone else dumping one dead animal and getting caught would have suffered a much worse fate I am sure, muchless the amount these folks dumped...then again PETA people get special treatment which is obvious in this situation. Well least they didnt post another totally gross billboard like they did on Virginia Beach Blvd. a few years ago...now they are in the dumping of dead animals buisness...and they wonder why they are viewed as nothing more than a mere joke.
Elmore's Argument/Logic....Unbelievable, That they Bought that!
With that logic/arguement when grandma passes away, we can legally toss her in the dumpster, because decomposition is occurring, & save the few thousand dollars paying funeral homes, & for proper burial. Who ever defined a corpse as trash, should be in question here. Not whether trash should be placed in a dumpster..Jeez talk about arguing interpretations. What about biological implications? Does this mean I don't have to bury Rover under the apple tree when his time comes? Guess the landfills better prepare for the deluge of animals corpses.