Tick-Tock! The Real Deadline for Criminal Animal Cruelty Cases in California
Ever wondered how long the state has to act against criminal animal abusers in California? When it comes to crimes against our furry, feathered, and finned friends, California law can be down-right confusing! And as a result, there’s lots of disinformation out there on this topic. In this post, we pull back the curtain to reveal the statute of limitations (SOL) for animal cruelty charges under California Penal Code Section 597, shedding light on the critical window prosecutors have to bring a case.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
What is the criminal statute of limitations for animal cruelty under California Penal Code section 597?
Does a prosecutor have discretion to initiate an animal cruelty charge under California Penal Code section 597 as either a felony or a misdemeanor? Does a judge hearing an animal cruelty case under California Penal Code section 597 have discretion to reduce a felony animal cruelty charge to a misdemeanor? If a prosecutor initiates an animal cruelty charge as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, or if a judge reduces a felony animal cruelty charge to a misdemeanor, how, if at all, does this misdemeanor disposition of the charge affect the statute of limitations?
Can intent determine whether a violation of California Penal Code section 597 is prosecuted or disposed of as a misdemeanor rather than as a felony?
SHORT ANSWERS
The criminal statute of limitations for animal cruelty under California Penal Code section 597 is three years, regardless of the charge being initiated as a felony or as a misdemeanor and regardless of whether a judge reduces a felony animal cruelty charge to a misdemeanor at any stage in the proceedings.
A prosecutor has discretion to file an animal cruelty charge under California Penal Code section 597 either as a felony or as a misdemeanor, and a judge has discretion to reduce a felony animal cruelty charge under California Penal Code section 597 to a misdemeanor; however, the three-year felony statute of limitations remains in place in any of these circumstances.
Although intent must generally be proven in any criminal case as an element of the offense, intent does not determine the severity level of an animal cruelty charge under California Penal Code section 597.
DISCUSSION
Felonies, Misdemeanors, and “Wobblers”
California Penal Code section 17, subdivision (a) defines a felony as a “crime that is punishable with death, by imprisonment in the state prison, or, notwithstanding any other law, by imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170.” Subdivision (a) further identifies a misdemeanor as “[e]very other crime or public offense . . . except those offenses that are classified as infractions.” Id.
There is also a special class of crimes under California law made up of offenses referred to as “wobblers”: “Wobblers” typically “involv[e] conduct that varies widely in its level of seriousness” and “are chargeable or, in the discretion of the court, punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor . . . .” People v. Park, 56 Cal. 4th 782, 789 (2013) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). While California Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b) does not use the term “wobbler,” subdivision (b) nevertheless describes the circumstances in which a crime that is eligible for either felony or misdemeanor punishment becomes a misdemeanor “for all purposes.” Those instances in which a “wobbler” becomes a misdemeanor include a preliminary determination by a magistrate, a number of sentencing routes determined by the court at the court’s discretion, and “[w]hen the prosecuting attorney files in a court having jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses a complaint specifying that the offense is a misdemeanor . . . .” Id.
Animal Cruelty: California Penal Code section 597 is a “Wobbler.”
The primary California criminal animal cruelty statute, California Penal Code section 597, is a “wobbler.” Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of section 597, which define the conduct amounting to animal cruelty under the statute, all refer to Subdivision (d) for punishment. Subdivision (d) of section 597 provides:
A violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is punishable as a felony by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Thus, since animal cruelty under California Penal Code section 597 is “punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor,” it is a “wobbler.” Park, 56 Cal. 4th at 789. Furthermore, several unpublished cases have specifically referred to California Penal Code section 597 as a “wobbler.” E.g., In re JUNIOR C., Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law, C046098, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5194, at *3 (June 15, 2005) (noting that defendant charged with Cal. Pen. Code § 597 (a) was charged with a “wobbler”); People v. Smith, No. A161676, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 548, at *14 (Jan. 28, 2022) (“In this case, defendant pleaded no contest to section 597, subdivision (b), which is a ‘wobbler,’ punishable either as a felony or a misdemeanor, in the court's discretion.”); Kriple v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., No. D079119, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2977, at *3 n.1 (May 16, 2022) (“The former statute [Cal. Pen. Code § 597] proscribes animal cruelty under state law as a wobbler offense.”).
Statutes of Limitations
California Penal Code section 802 (a) provides that, setting aside a number of statutory exceptions, “prosecution for an offense not punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 shall be commenced within one year after commission of the offense.” Thus the general misdemeanor statute of limitations in California is one year from the date of offense.
California Penal Code section 801 provides the general felony statute of limitations: “Except as provided in Sections 799 and 800, prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 shall be commenced within three years after commission of the offense.” California Penal Code sections 799 and 800 do not reference, and therefore do not apply to, prosecutions of animal cruelty under California Penal Code section 597.
California Penal Code section 805 (a) provides for the computation of the statutes of limitations for offenses, such as “wobblers,” that could be subject to different treatment as to the level of severity: “An offense is deemed punishable by the maximum punishment prescribed by statute for the offense, regardless of the punishment actually sought or imposed.”
California appellate courts have consistently interpreted California Penal Code section 805 (a) as assigning the felony statute of limitations to “wobbler” offenses, whether or not a “wobbler” offense receives misdemeanor treatment pursuant to California Penal Code section 17 (b). For instance, the California Court of Appeals, in People v. Soni, held that a “wobbler” offense “does not become a misdemeanor ‘for all purposes’ as described in section 17, subdivision (b), because section 805, subdivision (a), prevails over section 17 for statute of limitations purposes.” 134 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1517 (2005). The California Court of Appeals in Soni found that application of the felony statute of limitations to “wobblers” did not present a statutory conflict, but rather a case of the legislature “qualify[ing] general statutory language by a more specific provision.” Id. (citations omitted). Similarly, the California Supreme Court in Park interpreted prior case law as holding that “if the court exercised its discretion [pursuant to California Penal Code section 17 (b)] by imposing a sentence other than commitment to state prison, the defendant stood convicted of a misdemeanor, but only from that point forward; classification of the offense as a misdemeanor did not operate retroactively to the time of the crime's commission, the charge, or the adjudication of guilt.” Park, 56 Cal. 4th at 791 n.6 (citing Doble v. Superior Court of S.F., 197 Cal. 556, 576–77 (1925)).
California appellate courts have likewise interpreted California Penal Code section 805 (a) as requiring that the felony statute of limitations be applied to “wobbler” offenses regardless of the initial charging decision. In People v. Sillas, the California Court of Appeals held that the felony statute of limitations applied to “wobbler” offenses even though the prosecution originally filed the charges as misdemeanors, noting that “section 805, subdivision (a) does not distinguish between the original filing and a later reduction.” 100 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 4 (2002). See also Soni, 134 Cal. App. 4th at 1517 (“It is irrelevant that the prosecution chose to charge Soni with a misdemeanor violation of section 532a. That offense is a wobbler, and thus must be treated as a felony for purposes of determining the applicable limitation of actions.”).
The felony statute of limitations is not applicable, however, to instances where a “lesser-included” or “straight”—courts appear to use the terms interchangeably—misemeanor is concerned. California Penal Code section 805 (b) provides for the computation of the statute of limitations when a finding of guilt is made as to a crime that is a necessarily “lesser-included” offense within a more serious offense, rather than as an act of judicial or prosecutorial discretion under California Penal Code section 17 (b) : “The limitation of time applicable to an offense that is necessarily included within a greater offense is the limitation of time applicable to the lesser included offense, regardless of the limitation of time applicable to the greater offense.” The California Supreme Court applied this distinction between “wobblers” and “straight” or “lesser-included” misdemeanors in People v. Mincey: “Thus, the reductions of these counts were based on the offenses as necessarily included misdemeanors and not as the statutory alternatives, that is, ‘wobblers.’” 2 Cal. 4th 408, 453 (1992). In interpreting the holding of Mincey, the Supreme Court of California later stated, “In other words, [Mincey] was found guilty of two ‘straight’ misdemeanors and no wobblers at all.” Soni, 134 Cal. App. 4th at 1516. See also People v. Stanfill, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144–45 (1999) (holding that while the crime of embezzlement can be a “wobbler,” the jury found the defendant guilty of committing the lesser-included misdemeanor offense of embezzlement, as opposed to a misdemeanor finding of guilt as an act of judicial discretion under California Penal Code section 17 (b)); Doble, 197 Cal. at 576 (“[W]here a defendant is charged with a felony but has only committed a misdemeanor the statute of limitations for misdemeanors and not that for felonies will govern.”).
Intent
While intent must be proven pursuant to the terms of California’s animal cruelty statute for any violation to have occurred, intent does not appear to bear on the issue of whether a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, violation has occurred, according to the plain terminology of California Penal Code section 597. As a practical matter, a prosecutor might consider a defendant’s intent when deciding whether to initiate an animal cruelty charge as a misdemeanor, and a judge might similarly consider a defendant’s intent when deciding whether to reduce a felony animal cruelty charge to a misdemeanor and apply the provisions of subdivision (b) of California Penal Code section 17, but these considerations would be matters of mercy or equity, rather than cases of an unproven element of the offense. Subdivisions (a) and (c) of California Penal section 597 both require proof that the act of cruelty was done “maliciously and intentionally.” By statute, California Penal Code section 7 (b) (4) has defined “malice”: “‘Malice’ and ‘maliciously’ import a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.” California appellate courts have held that “intentionally,” on the other hand, “is often used synonymously with ‘knowingly,’ i.e., that the person doing the act is conscious of what he or she is doing, and its probable consequences.” People v. Fernandez, 26 Cal. App. 4th 710, 718 (1994). Subdivision (b) of California Penal Code section 597, on the other hand, does not on its face require proof of intent; however, California appellate courts have held that subdivision (b) requires proof of criminal negligence. People v. Brian, 110 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 3–4 (1980); see also People v. Tom, 22 Cal. App. 5th 250, 256 (2018) (“Both parties agree that subdivision (a) of section 597 applies to intentional acts while subdivision (b) of section 597 applies to conduct resulting from criminal negligence.” (citations omitted)).
Nevertheless, all three subdivisions—(a), (b), and (c)—of California Penal Code section 597, which provide the substantive elements of animal cruelty, refer to subdivision (d) for punishment. Subdivision (d) provides that a “violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is punishable as a felony…or alternatively, as a misdemeanor . . . . .” Id. Accordingly, animal cruelty under California Penal Code section 597, regardless of the subdivision and thus intent, remains a “wobbler” subject to either felony or misdemeanor treatment.
Likewise, the scant case law which has addressed intent under California Penal Code section 597 gives no indication that intent makes the difference between felony and misdemeanor treatment. The leading appellate decision defining the requisite intent under California Penal Code Section 597 (a), People v. Alvarado, looked at the terms “maliciously” and “intentionally” from subdivision (a) of the statute—these terms are echoed in subdivision (c)—and concluded that these terms were “expressions of general, not specific, intent when used in a penal statute.” 125 Cal. App. 4th 1179, 1188 (2005) (citations omitted). The court in Alvarado noted that subdivision (a) of California Penal Code section 597 did not contain the phrases “‘with the intent to’ or ‘for the purpose of’ that would be used in a specific intent crime,” id. at 1186–87, and did not require proof that the defendant “acted with the specific intent to maim, mutilate, torture, wound or kill a living animal,” id. at 1190. Of note, subdivision (b) of California Penal Code section 597 likewise contains neither the phrase “with the intent to” nor “for the purpose of,” as referenced in Alvarado, and thus would not be construed as a specific intent crime either. 125 Cal. App. 4th at 1186–87.
Finally, in People v. Smith, the appellate court references a preliminary hearing in the lower court where a judge found that malice was not proven under California Penal Code section 597 (a), but the lower court found that there was sufficient evidence for the case to proceed under subdivision (b), still as a felony. No. A161676, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 548, at *14 (Jan. 28, 2022). Again, both subdivisions referenced in Smith are “wobblers” since they both reference subdivision (d) for punishment. Id.; Cal. Pen. Code § 597. Ultimately, the lower court referenced in Smith reduced the charge to a misdemeanor pursuant to the factors in California Penal Code section 17 (b); there is no indication this reduction in severity was because of an unproven intent element. Id. at *12. The issue of intent was not a basis for the appeal in Smith and was not analyzed by the California Court of Appeals. Id. at *1–2.
CONCLUSION
The statute of limitations for “wobbler” offenses is the applicable felony statute of limitations, which is three years for animal cruelty under California Penal Code section 597. While a prosecutor may choose to initiate an animal cruelty charge under California Penal Code 597 as a misdemeanor, and a judge may reduce a felony animal cruelty charge to a misdemeanor pursuant to California Penal Code section 17 (b), the three-year felony statute of limitations nevertheless remains in place. Finally, while intent must be proven for any criminal charge pursuant to statutory and case law, proof of intent is not determinative of a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, disposition in an animal cruelty case.
