## Facts

- Manuchehr Riazati kept more than 90 animals at his residence, including rabbits, guinea pigs, birds, chickens, ducks, and dogs.
- Between February and April 2008, county animal services officers made multiple visits after complaints about the property.
- Officers observed inadequate housing, insufficient clean food and water, and unsanitary conditions; some animals were covered in urine and feces and showed illness and injury.
- Officers repeatedly warned Riazati and sought voluntary correction of violations, but conditions did not materially improve.
- The county obtained a search warrant and seized the animals.
- A veterinarian testified that many animals showed malnutrition, dehydration, and effects of filthy living conditions, and that the situation exposed them to a high risk of great bodily injury.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported six convictions for animal neglect under Penal Code § 597(b), including gross negligence creating a high risk of death or great bodily injury.
2. Whether jury instructions improperly reduced the prosecution’s burden by permitting conviction based on a “high risk of great bodily injury,” and whether the claim was barred by invited error because the defense requested the challenged instructions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and probationary disposition.
- The instructional challenge was barred by invited error because the defense deliberately requested the instructions as a tactical choice.
- Alternatively, the instructions correctly stated § 597(b) by requiring proof of gross negligence creating a high risk of death or great bodily injury.
- Substantial evidence supported all counts based on the number of animals, prolonged deprivation of adequate care, persistent unsanitary conditions, repeated warnings, and veterinary evidence of harm and risk.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 597(b) requires proof of a grossly negligent act or omission that deprives an animal of necessary care and creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury.
- Gross negligence is more than ordinary carelessness and involves reckless conduct creating a high risk of death or great bodily injury that a reasonable person would recognize.
- Under invited error, a defendant who persuades the trial court to use a procedure or instruction for tactical reasons generally may not claim on appeal that it was error.
- For § 597(b), exposure to a high risk of great bodily injury satisfies the statute’s protective purpose and may support criminal liability even if death has not occurred.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Riazati’s animal-neglect convictions, holding that his challenge to the requested jury instructions was forfeited by invited error and that, in any event, § 597(b) permits liability for grossly negligent neglect creating a high risk of death or great bodily injury, which the evidence amply supported.


People v. Riazati, 195 Cal. App. 4th 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)