THOMAS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Charles Edward Thomas, Sr., appeals his conviction of Class A misdemeanor animal cruelty. He argues that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. Concluding that his arguments are, in substance, a request to reweigh the evidence, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 20, 2024, at 10 a.m., Marcita Hughes was at a hotel in Indianapolis, running errands for a client. It was a hot day, with a temperature of around ninety degrees. Hughes saw a dog in a car in the parking lot. The dog, which appeared to her to be a pit bull, was pressing on the car's horn and appeared to be in distress. When Hughes returned to the parking lot at 2:00 p.m., the dog was still in the car, pressing on the horn. The car's windows were partially open, but its engine was off. Hughes noticed that the dog had a heavy chain around its neck, the kind that is used to tow vehicles.

[3] Hughes approached the car with a cup of ice to give to the dog. She asked who owned the vehicle, and Thomas came out of the hotel. He told her to get away from his car. Hughes returned to her car. Fifteen minutes later, she went back to Thomas’ car with water for the dog. Thomas came outside again, told her to stay away from his dog and his car, and threatened “to put hands on [her].” Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 69-70. Hughes told him to allow her to give the dog water, or she would call the police. He refused, and she called the police.

[4] Detective David Yohe and several other officers arrived an hour and forty-five minutes later, having been delayed by a nearby felony investigation. The detective spoke with the hotel manager, who said that there were multiple animals in a vehicle, and one of them was dead. Detective Yohe walked over to the car, where he saw a dead dog (the pitbull), a live dog (a German Shepard), and a live cat. The live animals belonged to Thomas’ companion. The dead dog had been chained to a weight, and it had a bloody nose. The car's windows were cracked open, and one of the windows had scratch marks. There was no water in the car.

[5] Detective Yohe spoke with Thomas, who initially denied responsibility for the car. But Hughes and hotel staff told the detective they saw Thomas around the car, including when Thomas and his companion had checked in. Detective Yohe arrested Thomas.

[6] The State charged Thomas with Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal. The trial judge held a bench trial and determined that Thomas was guilty as charged. The court imposed a sentence, and this appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Thomas argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he neglected his dog. “Sufficiency of evidence claims ‘warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.’ ” Newman v. State, 231 N.E.3d 927, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020)). “We look only to the probative evidence supporting the judgment and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Knox v. State, 13 N.E.3d 899, 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conviction, we will not set it aside. Id.

[8] To convict Thomas of animal cruelty as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas (1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally (2) abandoned or neglected (3) the pit bull, a vertebrate animal. Ind. Code § 35-46-3-7 (2014); Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 34. The General Assembly has defined neglect in this context as:

(A) endangering an animal's health by failing to provide or arrange to provide the animal with food or drink, if the animal is dependent upon the person for the provision of food or drink;

(B) restraining an animal for more than a brief period in a manner that endangers the animal's life or health by the use of a rope, chain, or tether that:

(i) is less than three (3) times the length of the animal;

(ii) is too heavy to permit the animal to move freely; or

(iii) causes the animal to choke;

(C) restraining an animal in a manner that seriously endangers the animal's life or health;

(D) failing to:

(i) provide reasonable care for; or

(ii) seek veterinary care for;

an injury or illness to a dog or cat that seriously endangers the life or health of the dog or cat; or

(E) leaving a dog or cat outside and exposed to:

(i) excessive heat without providing the animal with a means of shade from the heat; or

(ii) excessive cold if the animal is not provided with straw or another means of protection from the cold;

regardless of whether the animal is restrained or kept in a kennel.

Ind. Code § 35-46-3-0.5(6) (2023).

[9] The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that Thomas confined his dog in a car on a very hot day for at least four hours, tied to a weight by a heavy chain. The dog appeared to be in distress, pressing on the horn and scratching at a car window. Hughes attempted to give the dog water, but Thomas ordered her to leave his car alone. She called the police, but, by the time they arrived, the dog had died. This is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas recklessly or knowingly neglected his dog. See Reynolds v. State, 569 N.E.2d 680, 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (evidence sufficient to sustain convictions for cruelty to animals; defendant kept dogs caged in inhumanely hot environment with insufficient water).

[10] Thomas directs us to his testimony, during which he stated that a caseworker had moved him to the hotel after mold was found in his apartment, but Thomas did not know at the time that the hotel refused to accept pets. He also said that he brought water to his dog that day. The trial court was not obligated to believe his testimony, and we may not reweigh the evidence. Thomas has failed to demonstrate that his conviction should be reversed.

Conclusion

[11] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[12] Affirmed.

Robb, Senior Judge.

Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.