Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 112 (2026)

Domestic animals; malicious killing or injury

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 112. Whoever wilfully and maliciously kills, maims or disfigures any horse, cattle or other animal of another person, or wilfully and maliciously administers or exposes poison with intent that it shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 7 years in state prison or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by both fine and imprisonment; provided, however, that a second or subsequent offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years or by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: Scione v. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Barnes, 114 N.E.3d 74 (Mass. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scione v. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Barnes, 114 N.E.3d 74 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “269, § 10 (a), (c), or (m); G. L. c. 266, § 112; or G. L. c. 272, §§ 77, 94], or arrested and charged with a violation of [G.”

Commonwealth v. Joseph R. Lima. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “Lima, of malicious killing of a domestic animal, a cat, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 112. The defendant appeals, arguing in part that the prosecutor's questions to a police officer witness -- which brought out that the defendant refused to speak to the police when the police…”

Commonwealth v. Epifania, 951 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “This case presents a question of first impression about the scope of protection provided to animals under G. L. c. 266, § 112, as amended by St. 2004, c.”

Commonwealth v. Vieira (Mass. 2019). “a violation of an order pursuant to [G. L. c.”

Commonwealth v. Andruk, 102 N.E.3d 1032 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “272, § 77 ) and one count of malicious killing of a domestic animal ( G. L. c. 266, § 112 ). The judge found that the Commonwealth lost and or destroyed potential exculpatory evidence and that access to such evidence could have produced evidence favorable to the defendant's case.”

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.