## Facts

- Thomas Ellis Powell lived in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and owned two large Rottweilers (“Bruno” and “Woody”).
- On the night of 20 October 1989, Hoke Lane Prevette went jogging near Powell’s neighborhood.
- Powell’s dogs were loose and off Powell’s property at the time of the incident.
- Prevette was attacked by Powell’s dogs and died from multiple dog bites.
- Prevette’s body was found later that night in a nearby front yard; police confirmed he had no pulse.
- Autopsy evidence showed death resulted from injuries consistent with a dog mauling.
- Trial evidence included testimony that the dogs were often seen running loose, behaved aggressively, and had been picked up by animal-control officers on prior occasions.
- A local ordinance (Winston-Salem Code § 3-18) prohibited leaving a dog unattended outdoors unless adequately restrained to the owner’s property (e.g., by a sufficient fence or other restraining device).

## Issues

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence of involuntary manslaughter when the alleged culpable negligence was Powell’s failure to restrain his dogs in violation of a local restraint ordinance and the dogs killed a jogger.
2. What legal standards apply to involuntary manslaughter when the fatal act is committed by animals, and the alleged criminal negligence is the owner’s omission to control or restrain them.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld Powell’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
- The Court held the evidence permitted a jury to find culpable negligence based on Powell’s failure to restrain the dogs, including violation of the restraint ordinance.
- The Court held involuntary manslaughter may be predicated on animal attacks when the owner’s culpably negligent control or restraint of the animal is a proximate cause of death.
- The Court concluded the causation element was satisfied because the jury could find the unrestrained, off-property dogs killed Prevette and Powell’s culpable omissions led to that result.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing proximately caused by (1) an unlawful act not amounting to a felony and not naturally dangerous to life, or (2) a lawful act performed with culpable negligence.
- Culpable negligence requires more than ordinary carelessness; it is conduct showing thoughtless disregard of consequences or heedless indifference to the safety and rights of others.
- Violation of a safety or restraint ordinance is evidence relevant to the standard of care; when combined with knowledge of a serious risk and repeated noncompliance, it can support a finding of culpable negligence.
- An owner may be criminally liable for a death caused by an animal when the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous propensities or the risk it posed, failed to exercise reasonable care to restrain or control it, and that culpable failure proximately caused the death.
- The immediate infliction of injury by an animal does not defeat criminal causation if the owner’s culpably negligent omissions created and maintained the conditions leading to the fatal attack.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an involuntary manslaughter conviction where the defendant’s culpable failure to restrain large, frequently loose and aggressive dogs—supported by evidence of ordinance violation and awareness of risk—allowed the jury to find that his omissions proximately caused a jogger’s death.


State v. Powell, 446 S.E.2d 26 (N.C. 1994)