## Facts

- Andrea Martinez, an 83-year-old widow, kept a dog named “Lobo” in her custody.
- An animal-cruelty investigator received a report and went to Martinez’s home, where he observed Lobo outside, lethargic, malnourished, and suffering from severe parasitic sarcoptic mange causing complete hair loss and crusted skin.
- Martinez stated she had received Lobo about two years earlier from a friend who had been unable to cure the mange.
- With Martinez’s permission, the investigator seized Lobo and transported it to an animal-control facility; a veterinarian later recommended euthanasia.
- At trial, the investigator testified Martinez did not provide reasonable care and did not treat the mange, allowing the condition to deteriorate.
- The veterinarian testified Lobo had not received adequate care and that appropriate treatment likely could have suppressed the mange.
- A jury convicted Martinez of cruelty to animals for intentionally and knowingly failing unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter under Texas Penal Code § 42.09(a)(2); the court imposed a one-year jail term and a $1,000 fine, probated for two years with community service.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martinez intentionally or knowingly failed unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in her custody.
2. Whether the evidence was factually sufficient, considering all the evidence, to support the verdict.
3. Whether a jury may infer the culpable mental state (intent or knowledge) from the surrounding circumstances in an animal-cruelty prosecution.
4. Whether alleged trial errors (including vagueness as applied, jury-charge complaints, and prosecutorial remarks) required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction.
- The evidence was legally sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia standard to permit a rational jury to find each element, including intent or knowledge, beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The evidence was factually sufficient under the Clewis standard; the verdict was not so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust.
- The jury could infer Martinez’s culpable mental state from the dog’s extreme condition, the duration of Martinez’s custody, and expert testimony that adequate care and treatment were available.
- Martinez’s remaining appellate complaints did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Texas Penal Code § 42.09(a)(2) prohibits unreasonably failing to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in one’s custody.
- Legal sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational factfinder could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt; credibility and weight determinations belong to the jury.
- Factual sufficiency review considers all the evidence and permits reversal only when the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
- In animal-cruelty prosecutions, a jury may infer an “intentional” or “knowing” mental state from circumstantial evidence, including the animal’s physical condition, the persistence of that condition over time, and the defendant’s acts and omissions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Martinez’s animal-cruelty conviction, holding that the dog’s severe, untreated condition over an extended period, along with investigator and veterinary testimony, allowed the jury to infer that Martinez intentionally or knowingly failed unreasonably to provide necessary care, and that none of the asserted trial errors justified reversal.


Martinez v. State, 48 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001)