## Facts

- Suzanna Savedra Youngblood kept approximately 92 cats in a 7.5-foot by 11-foot trailer, leaving each cat less than one square foot of space.
- An animal control officer responded to a complaint, smelled strong ammonia odor near the trailer, and identified Youngblood as the trailer’s owner.
- From outside the trailer, the officer observed numerous cats, feces and urine, and visible signs of illness (e.g., sneezing and eye discharge).
- After obtaining a warrant, officers towed the trailer to a facility and opened it, finding pervasive filth and cats suffering from respiratory and eye conditions.
- Veterinary evidence indicated significant health problems among the cats; some required euthanasia, and the conditions posed serious risks to the animals’ health.
- Youngblood acknowledged keeping roughly 80–90 cats in the trailer and attempted to provide medicine for them.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 597(b) defines multiple separate crimes requiring unanimity on a specific act, or a single offense with alternative means that do not require such unanimity.
2. Whether the evidence and instructions supported a felony animal cruelty conviction under § 597(b), including the required mental state and prohibited conduct.
3. Whether § 597(b) is unconstitutionally vague as applied (e.g., terms such as “necessary sustenance,” “shelter,” and “needless suffering”).
4. Whether the warrant, towing of the trailer, and seizure of the cats violated search-and-seizure rules requiring suppression.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the felony conviction on count 1 and the judgment placing Youngblood on probation with jail time and animal-possession restrictions.
- The court held the jury instructions correctly treated § 597(b) as a single offense with alternative statutory means and did not require unanimity on a particular act within a unified course of conduct.
- The court found the evidence sufficient to prove cruelty under § 597(b) based on extreme overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and resulting illness and suffering.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding the statute provided adequate notice of prohibited conduct as applied.
- The court upheld the warrant and seizure, finding probable cause supported by the officer’s exterior observations and odor, and that towing and searching were reasonable and within the warrant’s scope.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute lists disjunctive acts that are closely related as part of one course of conduct, the statute may define a single offense committed by alternative means; jury unanimity is required as to guilt, not as to the precise means.
- Felony animal cruelty under Penal Code § 597(b) may be established by proof that an owner or custodian subjected animals to needless suffering or deprived them of necessary care, where conditions show criminal disregard rather than minor neglect.
- A statute is not void for vagueness merely because it uses common terms requiring case-by-case application; the question is whether it gives reasonable notice to a person of ordinary intelligence, particularly as applied to the defendant’s conduct.
- Observations made from a lawful vantage point outside a structure may support probable cause for a warrant; executing a warrant may include reasonable steps (including securing the scene) consistent with the warrant’s authorization.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Youngblood’s felony animal cruelty conviction, ruling that Penal Code § 597(b) sets out alternative means of committing a single offense, the evidence showed criminally abusive conditions causing needless suffering, the statute was sufficiently definite as applied, and the warrant-based search and seizure were lawful.


People v. Youngblood, 91 Cal. App. 4th 66, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776 (Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2001)