Our client D.G. was convicted at trial of violating Agriculture & Markets Law § 353 for allegedly harming his dog. The indictment alleged that D.G. personally injured his dog, and, at trial, his attorneys argued that his uncle had been responsible. The trial court instructed the jury on many more theories of potential guilt than alleged in the indictment, including that D.G. could be guilty if he permitted another person to injure the dog. On appeal, our office argued that the trial court’s instruction constructively amended the indictment. Although the issue was not preserved, the Appellate Division reached it in the interest of justice and reversed the conviction. Alexandra Mitter represented D.G.
Animal Cruelty Conviction Reversed and New Trial Ordered
Decided on April 4, 2019