## Facts

- Charmarke Abdi-Issa and Julie Fairbanks were intimate partners; Fairbanks cared for a small dog, Mona, whom she treated as a companion animal.
- During the relationship, Abdi-Issa was abusive toward Fairbanks and Mona, including threats to kill both.
- Fairbanks observed prior unexplained injuries to Mona after the dog had been alone with Abdi-Issa.
- On October 17, 2018, Abdi-Issa insisted on taking Mona for a walk over Fairbanks’s objections; soon after, he called claiming Mona slipped out of her harness and disappeared, while Fairbanks heard the dog yelp in the background.
- Two pedestrians found Abdi-Issa beating and kicking Mona, threatened the pedestrians when they attempted to intervene, and continued until the dog’s cries stopped.
- Police found Mona barely alive; she was taken to a veterinary hospital and died shortly after arrival.
- A jury convicted Abdi-Issa of first-degree animal cruelty; the trial court imposed an exceptional sentence and designated the offense as domestic violence, entering a no-contact order protecting Fairbanks.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the domestic-violence designation and no-contact order; the State sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether first-degree animal cruelty may be designated a domestic-violence offense when committed by one intimate partner against the other partner’s companion animal.
2. Whether the animal’s human guardian qualifies as a “victim” for purposes of applying domestic-violence provisions, including a no-contact order.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the domestic-violence designation.
- The court held that first-degree animal cruelty can be designated a domestic-violence offense when committed by one intimate partner against the other’s animal in this context.
- The court held Fairbanks was a “victim” of the animal-cruelty offense for purposes of domestic-violence and sentencing provisions.
- The court reinstated the trial court’s domestic-violence designation and the related no-contact order; the animal-cruelty conviction remained affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Domestic-violence designation turns on the qualifying relationship and the abusive conduct’s function within that relationship; it is not categorically barred merely because the charged offense is not on a narrow list of commonly charged DV crimes.
- A person may be a statutory “victim” of an offense when the person suffers direct emotional or psychological harm from the criminal act, even if the immediate physical injury is to property or an animal.
- Companion-animal abuse committed in an intimate-partner relationship may constitute coercive control directed at the human partner and can justify DV remedies, including protective no-contact orders, when authorized by the domestic-violence and sentencing statutes.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that first-degree animal cruelty committed against an intimate partner’s companion animal may be treated as domestic violence and that the animal’s guardian may be recognized as a victim, permitting domestic-violence protections such as a no-contact order.


State v. Abdi-Issa, 504 P.3d 223 (Wash. 2022)