A bill offered by a local lawmaker that would overhaul state animal cruelty law was scheduled for a hearing Wednesday (2/13) before a state Senate committee, and based on feedback from the Public Defender Department and other state agencies, the bill faces substantial revisions.
Senate Bill 83, introduced by state Sen. Richard C. Martinez, D-Española, was scheduled to be heard Wednesday afternoon by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Martinez chairs.
The bill was passed by the Senate Public Affairs Committee Jan. 29 and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Public Affairs Committee adopted the bill by an 8-0 vote, with five amendments.
The gist of the bill, which would increase the penalty for animal cruelty when causing death or great bodily harm, survived the amendment process.
The bill would make it a fourth-degree felony to commit animal cruelty that causes death or great bodily harm, punishable by up to 18 months in prison or a fine of up to $5,000. The same punishments would apply to those found guilty of extreme cruelty to animals, which would also be a fourth-degree felony.
A person found guilty of animal cruelty for a fourth or subsequent offense would be guilty of a fourth-degree felony, also punishable by up to 18 months in prison or a $5,000 fine.
The bill would require those convicted of extreme cruelty to animals to undergo psychological counseling, and pay to participate in an animal cruelty prevention or education program. Existing law requires children found guilty of animal cruelty to undergo a court-ordered assessment and any necessary psychological counseling. Existing law gives the courts discretion to order adults convicted of animal cruelty to participate in an animal cruelty prevention or education programs.
The bill provides a misdemeanor punishment of less than a year in prison, or a fine of up to $1,000, for those guilty of animal cruelty.
The bill, and current law, provide “lawful justification” for humanely destroying a sick or injured animal, and for protecting a person or animal from death or injury due to an attack by another animal.
Exemptions
It strikes a provision excluding insects or reptiles as animals in the existing law, and replaces the language with “captive invertebrates and all vertebrates except for humans and non-captive snakes.”
The language about captive invertebrates was struck by the Public Affairs Committee, chaired by Rep. Gerald Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, which also removed language defining a captive animal.
The Public Affairs Committee also added dairies as exempted entities. The bill now states “the treatment of livestock and other animals used on farms, ranches and dairies for the production of food, fiber or other agricultural products” are not covered by the bill “when the treatment is in accordance with commonly accepted agricultural animal husbandry practices.”
“Commonly accepted Mexican and American rodeo practices, unless otherwise prohibited by law,” are also exempted.
Other activities exempted from the bill’s provisions include research facilities, fishing, hunting, falconry, trapping, commonly accepted veterinary practices, and rodent or pest control.
The Public Affairs Committee also struck language from the bill that stated criminal charges shall not be filed until after the New Mexico livestock board or the board of veterinary medicine hold hearings to determine commonly accepted agricultural husbandry practices, commonly accepted rodeo practices or commonly accepted veterinary practices.
The Legislative Finance Committee prepared a fiscal impact report, which stated the Administrative Office of the Courts indicated there would be minimal administrative costs to update the existing law.
The Association of District Attorneys said the bill’s language of “reckless” or “intentional” are higher standards than “negligent” in current law, and therefore might result in fewer cruelty to animals cases.
The Public Defender Department said the bill creates overlaps between misdemeanor and felony crimes that are not clear. Its report also states insects qualify as invertebrates.
“Unintentionally absurd convictions could result,” the Department report states. “For example, people have captive crickets which are fed to pet lizards and snakes. Such a person could be guilty of cruelty killing a cricket, a fourth-degree felony.”
The Department said defendants were sure to appeal on cruel and unusual punishment grounds. The Department also said the bill should include more lawful justifications.
“One example is feeding crickets to snakes,” the Department reported. “Also, there may be home-care treatment that is not veterinary, but similarly necessary. For example, pulling porcupine spines or cactus spines out of an animal would torment an animal…but the drafter probably did not intend such behavior to be included. Causing pain in order to help the animal could be added to lawful justifications.”