MEMO

 I have obtained some troubling facts from one of our investigators and would like you to advise me of how you think we should proceed. The facts we have so far indicate that the victim, a two year old child, was killed when she was attacked by her neighbor’s pit bull dog. The attack was observed, at least in part, by the child’s father and by a neighbor. The father apparently saw the dog attacking the child and hesitated for some period of time before attempting to assist in removing the dog from the child. The neighbor watched from across the street and apparently saw the entire incident, but did not intervene to help the child. The owner of the dog ultimately removed the dog from the child, but not until after mortal injuries had been inflicted.

Our investigation reveals that the dog who attacked and killed the child is named Gripper. He is one of four pit pulls owned by Carl Canyne. We have several witnesses who tell us that Canyne raises the dogs for dogfights, and that in fact Gripper and at least one of the other dogs have been used in such fights. A search of Canyne’s house revealed several pamphlets on raising fighting dogs, a treadmill used to condition dogs, photographs of dog fights and a "break stick," which is used to pry fighting dogs apart since they will not break on command. We also have a statement from the breeder of the dog who sold Gripper to Carl. He indicated that Carl selected Gripper as a young dog because of his gameness, wind and exceptionally hard bite. The breeder had told Carl that, in a dog fight, "most dogs wouldn’t go an hour with Gripper and live." There is no evidence that Gripper had ever attacked a human being before this incident.

The information we have indicates that Gripper and the other pit bulls, when outside, are kept in a 10x20' fenced run inside Canyne’s yard. The entire yard is fenced, but the latch on the fence is loose and the fence swings open quite easily. The latch on the dog run is secure, but there is an area of the fencing in the run that is broken and large enough for the dogs to get through. We have some indication that Canyne was aware of the broken area and of the loose latch, but this still needs to be developed.

Apparently, last Tuesday, Paula Peterson, the victim’s mother, was watching Patty, the victim, play in the front yard when she heard the phone ring. She realized she had forgotten to bring the portable phone outside with her, so she left Patty in the front yard (unfenced) to run in and get the phone. She was apparently distracted by something inside (we think it was something she had in the oven) and didn’t return outside immediately (we don’t have all the details of this yet). She was probably in the house three to five minutes when she heard screaming and a commotion. She ran outside and saw Patty in the Canyne yard, with Gripper attacking her. She also saw her husband, who had just returned from work, just standing within a few feet of Patty and the dog. Paula next saw her husband Phil start to move toward the dog when Carl, also apparently in response to the commotion, ran out of the house, saw the attack, and approached Gripper with a break stick. He used the stick to release the child from the dog’s grip. Unfortunately, it was too late, and Patty had already suffered serious injuries from which she died about an hour later.

There appears to be a dispute as to what, if anything, Carl had told the Petersons about the dog. Paula has indicated that Carl told her that she didn’t need to worry about the dogs since they weren’t dangerous to people, and in any event, they were kept behind the fence. One of the neighbors (not involved in the events of last week) indicated that he thought he’d heard Carl tell either Mr. or Mrs. Peterson that they should keep their distance from the dogs since they were trained fighters and could be unpredictable. I think we have an expert on pit bulls who can confirm the danger and unpredictability of such dogs, especially when they have been used for fighting, and I believe at least one of the pamphlets found in Carl’s house alludes to this as well.

I need some advice on what charges can be filed against any of the parties to this unfortunate event. What difficulties will we face in trying to prosecute? What additional evidence might we need. I will be meeting with our investigator next week and want to give her guidance. Please be prepared to report to me on this early next week.

Please note that we have the following statutes that may be relevant

(a) Any person who does any of the following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, or by a fine not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment:

(1) Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog.

(2) For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other.

(3) Permits any act in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) to be done on any premises under his or her charge or control, or aids or abets that act.

(b) Any person who is knowingly present, as a spectator, at any place, building, or tenement where preparations are being made for an exhibition of the fighting of dogs, with the intent to be present at those preparations, or is knowingly present at that exhibition or at any other fighting or injuring as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), with the intent to be present at that exhibition, fighting, or injuring, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

We also have statutes that make it a misdemeanor for a parent to "willfully cause or permit any child to suffer, or inflict thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully cause or permit the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully cause or permit that child to be placed in such a situation that its person or health may be endangered," § 273, or to willfully omit, without lawful excuse, to furnish necessary clothing, food, shelter or medical attendance, or other remedial care for his or her child. § 270.  Please note language from a Mokans case, People v. Lee, interpreting these statutes:

"Mere inattention or mistake in judgment is insufficient to support a criminal conviction. . . . The term “willful” does not require intent to injure the child, but “implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to.  It does not require any intent to violate law, or to injure the child, but” ‘implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to.  It does not require any intent to violate, or to injure another to acquire any advantage.’"

Thanks.