## Facts

- Beverly Joan Brian owned three horses and multiple other animals (dogs, cats, goats, and fowl).
- In July 1978, Brian left on an extended trip and expected to return around September 1.
- Before leaving, she made informal arrangements with her stepfather and a feed-store employee to feed the animals; the arrangements were not firmly established.
- The feed-store employee initially fed the animals while the stepfather paid for feed; around August 15 the stepfather left the area and the animals were reportedly in good condition.
- The feed-store employee continued feeding until about September 14 and spent about $60 of his own money on feed.
- Brian’s return was delayed by car breakdowns; on September 8 she learned the stepfather would no longer pay for feed.
- On September 14, Brian contacted the stepfather, sheriff’s department, the feed-store employee, and a friend to secure care until she returned; the feed-store employee refused to continue.
- On September 19, an animal control officer posted the premises; Brian returned the same day and was charged with neglect on or about that date.
- There was substantial evidence that some animals were thin and dehydrated due to shortages of food, water, shelter, and protection from weather.

## Issues

1. What mental state is required for a conviction under California Penal Code § 597(b): ordinary negligence or criminal negligence?
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the required mental state for Brian’s charged neglect.

## Decision

- The appellate department held that Penal Code § 597(b) requires proof of criminal negligence, not mere ordinary negligence.
- The court rejected the earlier view that the statute requires only “negligence, but not more.”
- Applying the criminal-negligence standard, the court found the evidence insufficient to support Brian’s conviction.
- The conviction was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 597(b) requires proof of criminal negligence—conduct that constitutes a gross departure from reasonable care—rather than ordinary (civil) negligence.
- Proof that animals suffered inadequate care does not alone establish liability under § 597(b); the prosecution must also prove the defendant’s culpable mental state.
- When the prosecution relies on omissions by an absent owner, evidence of the owner’s arrangements for care and remedial efforts upon learning of problems may negate a finding of criminal negligence.

## Conclusion

The court reversed an animal-neglect conviction because Penal Code § 597(b) requires criminal negligence, and the evidence showed, at most, inadequate or unsuccessful arrangements and delayed return rather than a grossly reckless failure to provide necessary care.


People v. Brian, 110 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 168 Cal. Rptr. 105 (App. Dep’t Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty. 1980)