Sec. 12. (a) This section does not apply to a person
who euthanizes an injured, a sick, a homeless, or an unwanted domestic
animal if:
(1) the person is employed by a humane society, an animal control
agency, or a governmental entity operating an animal shelter or
other animal impounding facility; and
(2) the person euthanizes the domestic animal in accordance with
guidelines adopted by the humane society, animal control agency,
or governmental entity operating the animal shelter or other
animal impounding facility.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally abuses a vertebrate
animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor.
However, the offense is a Level 6 felony if:
(1) the person has a previous, unrelated conviction under this
section; or
(2) the person committed the offense with the intent to threaten,
intimidate, coerce, harass, or terrorize a family or household
member.
(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally tortures or mutilates a
vertebrate animal commits torturing or mutilating a vertebrate animal,
a Level 6 felony.
(d) As used in this subsection, "domestic animal" means an animal
that is not wild. The term is limited to:
(1) cattle, calves, horses, mules, swine, sheep, goats, dogs, cats,
poultry, ostriches, rhea, and emus; and
(2) an animal of the bovine, equine, ovine, caprine, porcine,
canine, feline, camelid, cervidae, or bison species.
A person who knowingly or intentionally kills a domestic animal
without the consent of the owner of the domestic animal commits
killing a domestic animal, a Level 6 felony.
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the
accused person:
(1) reasonably believes the conduct was necessary to:
(A) prevent injury to the accused person or another person;
(B) protect the property of the accused person from destruction
or substantial damage; or
(C) prevent a seriously injured vertebrate animal from
prolonged suffering; or
(2) engaged in a reasonable and recognized act of training,
handling, or disciplining the vertebrate animal.
(f) When a court imposes a sentence or enters a dispositional decree
under this section, the court:
(1) shall consider requiring:
(A) a person convicted of an offense under this section; or
(B) a child adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act
that would be a crime under this section if committed by an
adult;
to receive psychological, behavioral, or other counseling as a part
of the sentence or dispositional decree; and
(2) may order an individual described in subdivision (1) to receive
psychological, behavioral, or other counseling as a part of the
sentence or dispositional decree.
As added by P.L.193-1987, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.41-1998,
SEC.2; P.L.132-2002, SEC.1; P.L.7-2007, SEC.1; P.L.171-2007,
SEC.10; P.L.111-2009, SEC.14; P.L.158-2013, SEC.566;
P.L.141-2019, SEC.10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case:
Price v. State, 911 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Price v. State, 911 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “Vagueness Price argues that Indiana Code section 35-46-3-12 is unconstitutionally vague.”
Hall v. State, 791 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 20× “See I.C. § 35-46-3-12. In addition, the weapons are not dissimilar in their propensity to wound or injure.”
Tooley v. State, 911 N.E.2d 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12(b). 2 . Tooley was not a juvenile at the time the offense was committed.”
A.J.R. v. State of Indiana, 3 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “" Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12 (c). Indiana law defines both "mutilate" and "torture.”
Lykins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “He asserts that the crime of cruelty to animals is covered exclusively by Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12. 6 That statute sets forth cruelty to animals as a class A misdemeanor.”
John Aaron Shoultz III v. State of Indiana, 995 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12(e) (providing that a person who intentionally tortures a vertebrate animal commits a class D felony).”
Alice Lee v. State of Indiana, 973 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “We do not address whether this activity would fall within the prohibitions of Indiana Code section 35-46-3-12, which prohibits the beating of vertebrate animals or Indiana Code section 35-46-3-7 which prohibits the abandonment or neglect of vertebrate animals.”
A.J.R. v. State, 24 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “Indiana Code section 35-46-3-12(c): Cruelty to Animals A.”
Larry D. Knox v. State of Indiana, 13 N.E.3d 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “” 1 However, it is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused reasonably believed his conduct was necessary to prevent injury to himself or to protect his property from destruction or substantial damage.”
Hedger v. State, 824 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12(b). 2 . The trial court found a number of aggravating circumstances.”
Adams v. State, 968 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “denied, for example, Price argued that I.C. § 35-46-3-12 was unconstitutionally vague.”
Williams v. State, 861 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Robert Williams (Williams), appeals his sentence after being convicted of torturing a vertebrate animal, a Class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12. We affirm. ISSUE Williams raises two issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as…”
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12(a): 3 cases
Hall v. State, 791 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“See I.C. § 35-46-3-12. In addition, the weapons are not dissimilar in their propensity to wound or injure.”
Lykins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“He asserts that the crime of cruelty to animals is covered exclusively by Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12. 6 That statute sets forth cruelty to animals as a class A misdemeanor.”
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12(a)(l): 1 case
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12(b): 6 cases
Price v. State, 911 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Vagueness Price argues that Indiana Code section 35-46-3-12 is unconstitutionally vague.”
Tooley v. State, 911 N.E.2d 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12(b). 2 . Tooley was not a juvenile at the time the offense was committed.”
Hall v. State, 791 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“See I.C. § 35-46-3-12. In addition, the weapons are not dissimilar in their propensity to wound or injure.”
Hedger v. State, 824 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12(b). 2 . The trial court found a number of aggravating circumstances.”
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12(c): 4 cases
A.J.R. v. State of Indiana, 3 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“" Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12 (c). Indiana law defines both "mutilate" and "torture.”
Larry D. Knox v. State of Indiana, 13 N.E.3d 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“” 1 However, it is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused reasonably believed his conduct was necessary to prevent injury to himself or to protect his property from destruction or substantial damage.”
A.J.R. v. State, 24 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“Indiana Code section 35-46-3-12(c): Cruelty to Animals A.”
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12(d): 4 cases
A.J.R. v. State of Indiana, 3 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“" Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12 (c). Indiana law defines both "mutilate" and "torture.”
A.J.R. v. State, 24 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“Indiana Code section 35-46-3-12(c): Cruelty to Animals A.”
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12(e): 2 cases
John Aaron Shoultz III v. State of Indiana, 995 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“See Ind.Code § 35-46-3-12(e) (providing that a person who intentionally tortures a vertebrate animal commits a class D felony).”
Ind. Code § 35-46-3-12(e)(1)(A): 1 case
Larry D. Knox v. State of Indiana, 13 N.E.3d 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“” 1 However, it is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused reasonably believed his conduct was necessary to prevent injury to himself or to protect his property from destruction or substantial damage.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.