Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title I Chapter 272
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 77 (2026)

Cruelty to animals; prohibition from work involving contact with animals

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 77. Whoever overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly beats, mutilates or kills an animal, or causes or procures an animal to be overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, cruelly beaten, mutilated or killed; and whoever uses in a cruel or inhuman manner in a race, game, or contest, or in training therefor, as lure or bait a live animal, except an animal if used as lure or bait in fishing; and whoever, having the charge or custody of an animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon it, or unnecessarily fails to provide it with proper food, drink, shelter, sanitary environment, or protection from the weather, and whoever, as owner, possessor, or person having the charge or custody of an animal, cruelly drives or works it when unfit for labor, or willfully abandons it, or carries it or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind 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. Notwithstanding section 26 of chapter 218 or any other general or special law to the contrary, the district courts and the divisions of the Boston municipal court department shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the superior court, of a violation of this section.

In addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction for any violation of this section or of sections 77A, 77C, 78, 78A, 79A, 79B, 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E, 80E1/2, 80F, 86, 86A, 86B or 94 the defendant shall forfeit to the custody of any society, incorporated under the laws of the commonwealth for the prevention of cruelty to animals or for the care and protection of homeless or suffering animals, the animal whose treatment was the basis of such conviction.

A person convicted of a crime of cruelty to an animal shall be prohibited from working in any capacity that requires such person to be in contact with an animal, including a commercial boarding or training establishment, shelter, animal control facility, pet shop, grooming facility, commercial breeder service, veterinary hospital or clinic or animal welfare society or other nonprofit organization incorporated for the purpose of providing for and promoting the welfare, protection and humane treatment of animals.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Waller, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 295 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Waller, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 295 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “” After a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of animal cruelty, in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 77, as amended by St. 1984, c.”
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 7 N.E.3d 469 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 4× “The defendant was charged with three counts of animal cruelty under G. L. c. 272, § 77. A District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search but subsequently reported a question of law, pursuant to Mass.”
Commonwealth v. Szewczyk, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 711 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 6× “After a jury-waived trial in the District Court, the defendant was convicted of one count of cruelty to an animal in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 77. He now appeals, arguing that the judge erred in denying three of his eleven requests for rulings of law, pursuant to Mass.”
Scione v. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Barnes, 114 N.E.3d 74 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “266, § 112; or G. L. c. 272, §§ 77, 94], or arrested and charged with a violation of [G.”
Commonwealth v. Erickson, 905 N.E.2d 127 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 272, § 77, as amended through St.”
Commonwealth v. Daly, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 48 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “The first sentence of *55 the instruction properly recites the relevant portion of G. L. c. 272, § 77. See note 1, supra. Decisional law has explicated this language, including that “jcjruelty in this context is severe pain inflicted upon an animal .”
Carney v. Attorney Gen., 447 Mass. 218 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 8 The new law proposes criminal penalties identical to those set by G. L. c. 272, § 77, the general animal neglect and mistreatment statute, 9 but potentially greater than those set by G.”
United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2008). “Law §§ 10-604, 10-606, 10-607, 10-608 (2008); Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 77 (2006); Mich.”
Commonwealth v. Zalesky, 906 N.E.2d 349 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “After a jury-waived trial in the District Court, the defendant was convicted of cruelty to an animal, in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 77. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish Ms guilt.”
People v. Allen, 657 P.2d 447 (Colo. 1983). “3A); Mass.Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, § 77 (West 1972); Mich.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund Boston, Inc. v. Provimi Veal Corp., 626 F. Supp. 278 (D. Mass. 1986). “, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 272, §§ 77, 78A, 81, 85A (West Supp.”
Commonwealth v. Telcinord, 113 N.E.3d 382 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “2d 310 (animal cruelty statute, G. L. c. 272, § 77, "sets forth a perhaps 'imprecise but comprehensible normative standard' " which is sufficiently exacting when viewed in context and in conjunction with case law); Commonwealth v.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
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.