Back in the days when most people lived on farms or in rural areas, the common law gave great protection to a landowner’s right to protect his property and intrusion upon it, including by animals. If you’ve ever seen the old Errol Flynn movie Robin Hood, you may recall that it was a capital offense to kill a deer on the King’s land. In modern times the law has clearly swung towards protection of animals, but on occasion still has to deal with person’s who think their land is sacrosanct. This is illustrated by an opinion from Maryland’s intermediate appellate court last week in the case of Jeffrey Lynn Hurd v. State of Maryland.
The Court’s opinion indicates that Mr. Hurd lived in rural Washington County, and two of his neighbors were named Pereschuk and Rudolph. Mr. Pereschuk owned a two year old black Labrador retriever named Bristol. In July 2007 the Pereschuk family had a cookout, and Bristol was playing with another dog on the property. At some point Bristol disappeared, and Mr. Pereshuk a few minutes later heard two gunshots. He called Mr. Hurd to say he was looking for his dog, and went to his house. Mr. Hurd told him he was in a tree stand reading his Bible when he saw a black dog chasing a deer on his land, and he shot and killed the dog.
Mr. Rudolph, Pereschuk’s son in law, contacted Hurd to make arrangements to get Bristol’s body. He told Hurd at that time that he had a German Shephard and another dog, “and if you ever see either one on your property I expect a call first.”
Rudolph in May 20088 was walking his German Shephard named Harley, when he let him off the leash to play with a another dog. Harley then took off running after a rabbit. Rudolph ran to Hurd’s property calling for him, and then heard a high powered rifle shot. Hurd had fired from his kitchen window after allegedly seeking Harley chasing a wild turkey on his property, crippling the dog. He then reloaded and killed the dog. Rudolph confronted Hurd, and then called the police to make an animal cruelty complaint, as did Pereschuk.
Hurd went to trial before a judge, and was convicted of two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals, as well as malicious destruction of property valued at under $500. He was sentenced to thee years in jail with all but 90 days suspended, with three year’s probation, and appealed.
The appellate court first dealt with a statute regarding deer hunting methods, which prohibits use of dogs to hunt or pursue deer. At the time of these events, except in several counties (including Montgomery County) the law provided that a law enforcement officer “or any other person may kill a dog pursuing any deer.” The law was later changed to include Washington County, but the Court found Hurd should have been acquitted for killing Bristol.
The Court affirmed, however, the convictions for killing Harley. It had no trouble finding that shooting the dog violated the Criminal Law provision that “A person my not: intentionally..cruelly kill an animal.” The fact that he supposedly was chasing a turkey was no excuse. The Court also found that he had maliciously injured the personal property of another, and affirmed the malicious destruction of property conviction.