578.009. Animal neglect — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of animal neglect if he or she:
(1) Has custody or ownership of an animal and fails to provide adequate care; or
(2) Knowingly abandons an animal in any place without making provisions for its adequate care.
2. The offense of animal neglect is a class C misdemeanor unless the person has previously been found guilty of an offense under this section, or an offense in another jurisdiction which would constitute an offense under this section, in which case it is a class B misdemeanor.
3. All fines and penalties for a first finding of guilt under this section may be waived by the court if the person found guilty of animal neglect shows that adequate, permanent remedies for the neglect have been made. Reasonable costs incurred for the care and maintenance of neglected animals may not be waived. This section shall not apply to the provisions of section 578.007 or chapter 272.
4. In addition to any other penalty imposed by this section, the court may order a person found guilty of animal neglect to pay all reasonable costs and expenses necessary for:
(1) The care and maintenance of neglected animals within the person's custody or ownership;
(2) The disposal of any dead or diseased animals within the person's custody or ownership;
(3) The reduction of resulting organic debris affecting the immediate area of the neglect; and
(4) The avoidance or minimization of any public health risks created by the neglect of the animals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1988–2014 · leading case:
State v. Fackrell, 277 S.W.3d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Fackrell, 277 S.W.3d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “voir dire that Defendant’s attorney had lied to her during a previous, unrelated matter; 2) overruling Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s evidence; 3) overruling Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence; and…”
State ex rel. Zobel v. Burrell, 167 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. 2005).
· cites it 4× “However, the terms “animal neglect” and “animal abuse” are defined in section 578.009 and section 578.012. “Animal neglect” is defined as the failure “to provide adequate care or adequate control, which results in substantial harm to the animal.”
Vandeven v. Seabaugh, 753 S.W.2d 46 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 10× “The sole issue on appeal is whether RSMo § 578.009 (1986), which statute provides that it is a misdemeanor to commit animal neglect, creates an implied civil cause of action for injuries arising out of a dog bite.”
State of Missouri v. Warren Love, 454 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “On August 19, 2012, Warren Love (“Love”) was issued a uniform citation charging him with the class B misdemean- or of animal neglect in violation of section 578.009. 1 The state of Missouri (“State”) later filed an amended information charging Love with the class A misdemeanor…”
State v. Marshall, 821 S.W.2d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Defendant, Ed Marshall, was found guilty in a court tried case of two counts of animal neglect in violation of § 578.009 RSMo 1986 and fined $100 on each count.”
State v. Choate, 976 S.W.2d 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 14× “Choate was convicted of misdemeanor animal neglect, § 578.009, RSMo 1994 1 . He appeals, contending that the trial court.”
State v. Boshers, 848 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “The state’s amended information charged Boshers with violating § 578.009, RSMo 1986. 2 The amended information alleged: [I]n violation of Section 578.”
State v. Sapp, 948 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “In a consolidated appeal, Appellants, acting pro se, appeal the judgment entered upon their convictions by a jury of animal neglect, § 578.009 RSMo 1994, a class C misdemean- or.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.009(1) — 1 case
State v. Fackrell, 277 S.W.3d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
“voir dire that Defendant’s attorney had lied to her during a previous, unrelated matter; 2) overruling Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s evidence; 3) overruling Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence; and…”
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.