## Facts

- Police officers in Gwinnett County, Georgia, investigated a cockfight occurring inside a chicken house.
- Officers observed a group of people standing inside the chicken house and cheering.
- The officers saw two gamecocks wearing spurs fighting in a cockpit, and a third gamecock lying dead nearby.
- Officers detained the group; each person was charged with cruelty to animals, and all were convicted by a jury.
- The record contained no specific evidence that any particular defendant owned the birds, organized the event, equipped the birds with spurs, or otherwise participated beyond presence and cheering.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia’s cruelty-to-animals statute applies to cockfighting (i.e., whether gamecocks are “animals” under the statute).
2. Whether evidence that defendants were present and cheered at a cockfight, without proof of specific conduct by each defendant, is sufficient to support convictions for cruelty to animals.

## Decision

- The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the convictions.
- The court held that the cruelty-to-animals statute applies to fowls, including gamecocks.
- The court held that mere presence and cheering, without evidence tying each defendant to an “act, omission, or neglect” causing the prohibited harm, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Georgia’s cruelty-to-animals statute prohibits an “act, omission, or neglect” that causes unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death to any living animal.
- “Animal” is construed broadly to include fowls (including gamecocks), based on legislative intent reflected in statutory commentary indicating coverage of “all animals.”
- Criminal liability for cruelty to animals requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each defendant’s own culpable conduct (or legally accountable participation) causing the proscribed harm; group association, presence, or moral support alone does not establish guilt.

## Conclusion

Cockfighting falls within Georgia’s cruelty-to-animals statute, but convictions cannot rest solely on evidence that defendants were spectators who cheered; absent individualized proof connecting each defendant to the acts causing the cruelty, the evidence is legally insufficient and the convictions must be reversed.


Brackett v. State, 142 Ga. App. 601, 236 S.E.2d 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)