## Facts

- Robert Monte Prichard killed his pet dog by repeatedly striking the dog’s head with a shovel and then drowning the dog in a swimming pool.
- The State charged Prichard with state-jail-felony cruelty to a non-livestock animal and alleged a deadly-weapon finding, identifying the shovel and water as deadly weapons.
- A jury found Prichard guilty of animal cruelty and returned an affirmative deadly-weapon finding.
- Based on the deadly-weapon finding, the trial court punished Prichard under an elevated punishment range.
- On appeal, the intermediate court reformed portions of the judgment to reflect the underlying state-jail-felony conviction but affirmed the deadly-weapon finding.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to decide whether a deadly-weapon finding may be made when the weapon is used against only a nonhuman victim.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas law authorizes a deadly-weapon finding when the defendant’s use or exhibition of a deadly weapon is directed only at a nonhuman animal and no human is injured or threatened.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the deadly-weapon statute is ambiguous as to nonhuman victims.
- Applying statutory-construction factors, the court concluded the Legislature intended deadly-weapon findings to apply only when human victims are implicated.
- The court ruled the deadly-weapon finding was improper because Prichard’s conduct injured and killed only a dog.
- The court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment as to the deadly-weapon finding and remanded for further proceedings consistent with removing that finding.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory text is ambiguous, Texas courts may consult extratextual interpretive factors to determine legislative intent.
- Texas’s deadly-weapon finding scheme is limited to circumstances involving human victims; it does not authorize a deadly-weapon finding when the only victim is a nonhuman animal.
- Courts consider statutory context and practical consequences when construing ambiguous enhancement provisions, including whether an interpretation would distort a specific offense’s punishment structure.
- A general enhancement mechanism will not be construed to expand punishment for a specific offense absent a clear indication the Legislature intended that overlap.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that, although the deadly-weapon statute does not expressly identify the type of victim, its purpose and context show it targets increased danger to people; therefore, a deadly-weapon finding cannot attach to an animal-cruelty offense when only an animal is harmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings without the deadly-weapon finding.


Prichard v. State, 533 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017)