## Facts

- C.B., a minor, lived next to a neighbor who owned a part-Rottweiler mixed dog.
- For about four years before the incident, the dog allegedly repeatedly trespassed and caused problems for C.B.’s family, including soiling property, damaging outdoor furniture, obstructing visitors, and generally threatening the family.
- Immediately before the incident, the dog’s owner saw the dog in her yard.
- Moments later, the owner heard a gunshot and saw the dog running across her property, yelping and bleeding.
- A veterinarian determined the dog had been shot in the shoulder; the bullet was left in place to avoid further injury and remained, causing continuing soreness and pain.
- Evidence at the adjudicatory hearing showed C.B. admitted shooting the dog.
- The juvenile court found C.B. committed cruelty to animals under OCGA § 16-12-4(b), adjudicated him delinquent, and placed him on probation.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that C.B. caused “unjustifiable physical pain or suffering” to an animal under OCGA § 16-12-4(b).
2. Whether OCGA § 16-12-4(b), read with the defensive-acts provision in OCGA § 16-12-4(f), is unconstitutionally vague under due process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the delinquency adjudication.
- The Court held the evidence was sufficient to show C.B. shot the dog and caused unjustifiable physical pain or suffering within OCGA § 16-12-4(b).
- The Court rejected the vagueness challenge, holding OCGA § 16-12-4 provides adequate notice and standards when read as a whole.
- The Court held the statute distinguishes prohibited conduct (unjustifiable infliction of pain or suffering) from permitted conduct (reasonable defensive action, using a method designed to be as humane as possible under the circumstances).

## Legal Principles

- In juvenile delinquency adjudications, evidence is sufficient if a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the charged act.
- OCGA § 16-12-4(b) criminalizes causing death or “unjustifiable physical pain or suffering” to an animal by an act.
- OCGA § 16-12-4(f) permits defending persons or property from injury or damage by an animal, including injuring or killing an animal reasonably believed to pose such a threat, if the method used is designed to be as humane as possible under the circumstances.
- A statute is void for vagueness only if it fails to provide sufficiently definite warning of proscribed conduct, measured by common understanding and practices; statutory meaning is assessed by reading the statute as a whole.
- The possibility of close factual cases does not, by itself, render a criminal statute unconstitutionally vague.

## Conclusion

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed C.B.’s delinquency adjudication for animal cruelty, concluding that the evidence supported a finding that C.B. caused unjustifiable physical pain or suffering by shooting the dog and that OCGA § 16-12-4(b), read with the defensive exception in OCGA § 16-12-4(f), provides constitutionally sufficient notice and enforcement standards.


In the Interest of C.B., 286 Ga. 173, 686 S.E.2d 124 (Ga. 2009)