## Facts

- Dr. Edward Taub directed animal research at the Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR) laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland.
- IBR’s work was funded through National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants specifying the research to be performed.
- The laboratory was subject to the Federal Animal Welfare Act and periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- Montgomery County police investigated the lab based on information from a former employee and seized a colony of monkeys pursuant to a court order.
- The State charged Taub in a 17-count information under Maryland Code Article 27, § 59 (animal cruelty), alleging failure to provide necessary veterinary care for 17 different monkeys.
- In District Court, Taub was convicted on six counts and acquitted on the rest.
- On de novo appeal to the Circuit Court, a jury convicted Taub on one count involving a monkey known as Nero.
- The research at issue included somatosensory deafferentation procedures to create a stroke model to support rehabilitation-related experiments.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland’s animal-cruelty statute, Article 27, § 59, applies to a research institute conducting federally funded and federally regulated medical and scientific research.
2. Whether Taub’s conviction for failing to provide necessary veterinary care could stand if § 59 is inapplicable to such research activity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed Taub’s conviction.
- The court held that Article 27, § 59 was inapplicable to Taub and the IBR laboratory for the federally funded, federally regulated research conduct at issue.
- The court ordered the criminal charges dismissed.
- The court resolved the case on a threshold statutory-interpretation ground, avoiding constitutional and preemption questions raised by Taub.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland’s animal-cruelty statute targets unjustifiable or unnecessary cruelty and was not construed to criminalize “normal human activities” in which animal pain is incidental and unavoidable.
- Federally funded biomedical research conducted under extensive federal oversight may fall outside the intended reach of a general state cruelty statute when the relevant conduct is governed by a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme.
- An appellate court may decide a case on a dispositive issue not previously raised or decided below when appropriate, particularly to avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Maryland’s animal-cruelty statute did not extend to Taub’s NIH-funded, federally supervised laboratory research activities, reversed the single remaining conviction, and dismissed the information.


Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 463 A.2d 819 (Md. 1983)