## Facts

- The State of California charged Gary L. Thomason with felony cruelty to animals under California Penal Code § 597(a) based on the making of sexual-fetish “crush videos.”
- Thomason obtained mice, rats, and newborn mice (“pinkies”) from a store that sold rodents as food for other animals.
- The video at issue showed a woman (a codefendant) crushing live rodents under high-heeled shoes and bare feet, resulting in prolonged suffering and death.
- Law enforcement searched Thomason’s residence and seized videotapes and related materials connected to crush-video production.
- The case was submitted to the trial court on the preliminary-hearing testimony and the videotape received into evidence.
- The trial court found Thomason guilty of three felony counts of animal cruelty involving mice, rats, and baby mice.
- On appeal, Thomason argued (1) rodents are not “animals” within the meaning of § 597(a), (2) Health & Safety Code § 116125 authorized destruction of rodents as vermin, and (3) § 597(a) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to killing rodents.

## Issues

1. Does the term “any animal” in Penal Code § 597(a) include mice and rats, permitting felony animal-cruelty convictions based on mistreatment and killing of rodents?
2. Does Health & Safety Code § 116125, which addresses destruction of certain vermin, authorize conduct that otherwise violates Penal Code § 597(a)?
3. Is Penal Code § 597(a) unconstitutionally vague as applied to the killing of rodents, and does a defendant whose conduct clearly violates the statute have standing to argue vagueness based on hypothetical borderline applications?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that mice and rats are “animals” within the ordinary meaning of Penal Code § 597(a), and the statute’s reference to “any animal” is broad enough to include rodents.
- The court rejected the claim that Health & Safety Code § 116125 authorized the acts depicted in the crush video, reasoning that a law allowing destruction of vermin does not permit sadistic torture, maiming, or prolonged killing for entertainment.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding § 597(a) gave adequate notice that intentionally torturing and cruelly killing rodents is prohibited; it also ruled Thomason could not rely on speculative scenarios (such as pest-control practices) to invalidate the statute where his own conduct plainly fell within the statute’s prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation begins with the statute’s text; “any animal” in Penal Code § 597(a) is read according to its ordinary meaning and is not limited to pets or livestock absent limiting language.
- Related statutes are read together when possible; a public-health provision addressing vermin control does not create a blanket exemption from criminal liability for cruelty, torture, or mutilation.
- A criminal statute is not void for vagueness as applied when it provides reasonable notice that the charged conduct is forbidden and supplies standards sufficient to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
- A defendant whose conduct clearly falls within a statute’s prohibition generally lacks standing to argue the statute is vague based on hypothetical borderline cases that are not before the court.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed Thomason’s felony animal-cruelty convictions arising from crush videos, holding that Penal Code § 597(a) applies to rodents, that vermin-control statutes do not authorize torture or prolonged killing, and that § 597(a) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Thomason’s conduct.


People v. Thomason, 84 Cal. App. 4th 1064, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 247 (2000)