2017
State v. Jackson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28192, 2017-Ohio-635. Defendant was convicted under 959.16(A)(5) for being knowingly present at a dogfight.
State v. Jones, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28132, 2017-Ohio-636. Defendant was convicted under 959.16(A)(5) because he was knowingly present at a dogfight.
State v. Riggins, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28080, 2017-Ohio-80. Defendant was convicted under 959.16(A)(5) for being present at a dogfight. The State did not have to prove that payment was made.
State v. Spear, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28181, 2017-Ohio-169. Under 959.16(A)(5) Defendant was convicted on evidence that he was merely present at a dogfight, and not that he paid for admission.
2016
State v. Taylor, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28091, 2016-Ohio-7953. A home in Akron was raided for dogfighting, and Defendant was arrested at the home. He was convicted under R.C. 959.16(A)(5) for dogfighting based on the overall weight of the evidence.
2015
State v. Steward, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1083, 2015-Ohio-3081. Six pit-bulls were found in a house owned by the defendant. They had scarring and fresh wounds that were consistent with dog fighting and officers found medication to treat the dogs for injuries as well as devices used for training. Defendant was convicted for five counts of dog fighting under R.C. 959.16(A)(3).
Wiggins v. Kumpf, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 26263, 2015-Ohio-201. Plaintiff was charged with counts of dogfighting and animal cruelty, but the grand jury did not indict him. He then filed a complaint against Defendant (a dog warden) for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The court ruled in favor of Defendant because he was protected by immunity and was not acting recklessly.
2009
State v. Kendrick, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-080509, 2009-Ohio-3876. Defendant was convicted for dogfighting under R.C. 959.16, and his many challenges against the admissibility of evidence were overruled.
State v. Lewis, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 22726, 2009-Ohio-158. Defendant appealed his dogfighting conviction because he claimed the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress. However, upon review, the appellate court ruled in favor of Plaintiff.
2008
State v. Lungs, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 22704, 2008-Ohio-4928. Defendant had a van parked on the road with twenty-two crates full of dogs. The police investigated and found objects used to prepare dogs for fighting, as well as scarring on the dogs consistent with fighting. Defendant was convicted under R.C. 959.16(A)(3) for dogfighting, and the appellate court upheld. Defendant had argued that the evidence seized was in violation of the fourth amendment.
State v. Simmons, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 22378, 2008-Ohio-4747. Defendant pled guilty to violating R.C. 959.16(A)(3) for dogfighting and appealed his six-month jail sentence, claiming that community control was more consistent with the purpose of sentencing. However, the appellate court overruled this argument stating that the trial court was within its bounds to impose a jail sentence in this case.
2006
State v. Ogletree, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2005-P-0059, 2006-Ohio-4316. Defendant was convicted for dogfighting under R.C. 959.16(A)(3) because dogs were found in his house with scarring and wounds consistent with dogfighting. Training tools were also found. The appellate court upheld the conviction, stating state the burden of proof was met by the circumstantial evidence.
2003
State v. Jones, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-00-1231, 1232, 1233, 2003-Ohio-219. Defendant was convicted for dogfighting, but appealed based upon the introduction of hearsay evidence. The appellate court agreed with Defendant that hearsay evidence was introduced and negatively affected his case. Therefore, his dogfighting conviction was reversed and remanded.