Since 1871, Ohio has criminalized cruelty to any animal. In the early 2000s, state lawmakers recognized a need for greater protection for “companion animals,” such as dogs, cats, and other animals kept inside a residential dwelling. Penalties were increased for those causing serious injuries to companion animals.

How to categorize stray dogs and cats as well as roaming “community cats” that neighbors collectively care for has been a question for Ohio courts. Next week, the Supreme Court of Ohio will consider whether a stray kitten found in an apartment building’s basement is viewed as a companion animal and whether a man who poured bleach and water on the kitten can be convicted of a felony.

In October 2021, Cleveland police responded to a call of a distressed cat, and found a kitten on an apartment building basement floor lying still in a mixture of bleach and water. Alonzo Kyles was at the top of the stairs and told police he poured the mixture on the kitten because he feared it and wanted it to leave the building. The kitten was taken to a nearby veterinarian, who found the kitten wasn’t in pain but had experienced burned paws from the bleach and warned that bleach exposure can be deadly to cats.

Kyles was charged with cruelty to a companion animal, which has penalties ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony. He was convicted of felony-level cruelty and sentenced to nine months in prison. The Eighth District Court of Appeals vacated his conviction, finding the stray kitten didn’t meet the definition of “companion animal” under the law. The appeals court ruled that Kyles could be convicted of the misdemeanor-level cruelty that has applied to all animals since the 1800s.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which agreed to hear the case. The case has drawn national attention. Several organizations, including the Humane Society of the United States and Alley Cat Allies, are participating in the case by submitting amicus curiae briefs supporting the prosecutor.

Cats Must Be ’Kept’ For Law to Apply, Appeals Court Rules
The state law protecting companion animals, R.C. 959.131, has evolved since it was first enacted in 2003. The definition of “companion animal” now states that a companion animal “means any animal that is kept inside a residential dwelling and any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept, including a pet store as defined in section 956.01 of the Revised Code. ‘Companion animal’ does not include livestock or any wild animal.”

Kyles argued, and the appeals court agreed, that “any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept” applies to a dog or cat that is “cared for” or “under the control of” a person. Since the kitten was a stray, it didn’t meet the definition of a companion animal, the appeals court ruled.

The prosecutor and the animal advocates argue in their briefs that the interpretation contradicts the law’s plain language and ignores the legislative history of escalating animal cruelty penalties. The briefs explain that Ohio joined other states in the early 2000s in calling for steeper penalties for cruelty to animals often kept as pets. For the first time in state history, cruelty to an animal could be a felony rather than a misdemeanor. Under the 2003 version of the law, a felony could only be charged for a second or subsequent offense, a brief from the David Brauff Animal Law Center at Cleveland State University College of Law explained.

In 2013, the General Assembly passed “Nitro’s Law” to extend felony-level cruelty to dog kennel operators for “keeping” animals but not caring for them. Nitro, a Rottweiler in training at a kennel, and eight other dogs were starved to death. The owners, under the 2003 version of the law, were convicted of misdemeanor cruelty. In 2016, lawmakers honored northeast Ohio television broadcaster and animal advocate Dick Goddard with “Goddard’s Law,” which made the knowing attempt to cause serious physical harm to a companion animal a fifth-degree felony on the first offense, the animal law center explained.

The prosecutor argues the law was developed to recognize protection for all cats and dogs, whether cared for or uncared for, stray or kept.

Kyles disputes the claim, arguing that if Ohio wanted to protect all dogs and cats, the state could do as other states and define companion animals “as any animal that is kept inside a residential dwelling and any dog or cat.” If the sentence ended with “any dog or cat,” Kyles argues, there would be no need to add further words to define the status of the animals.

Kyles questions why the prosecutor believes the state policy applies greater protection to stray cats and dogs than to other pets that people keep, but not inside. He notes a pet guinea pig or rabbit kept in a backyard hutch would be excluded by R.C. 959.131 because they are not kept in a residence. The way the law is written is designed to protect only dogs and cats that people keep as pets, he concludes.

Watch Oral Arguments Online
The Supreme Court will hear State v. Kyles and three other cases, described below, during oral arguments on Tuesday, July 23, at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center. The Court will hear four more cases on Wednesday, July 24. Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. The arguments will be streamed live online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, where they are archived.

Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking on the name of each case.

Tuesday, July 23
Stand Your Ground
In June 2019, four teens drove to meet another teen to buy marijuana. The dealer got in the back seat of the car, a dispute led the dealer to pull out a gun, and the gun fired twice before a teen in the back seat knocked the weapon away. One teen pushed the dealer out of the SUV. The dealer hit his head on the road and died. Two teens were tried for murder and claimed self-defense. The trial began in June 2021, after the state’s new “Stand Your Ground” law took effect. The law states a person can use self-defense without a duty to retreat, and the two maintain the lack of a duty to retreat was key to their defense. The trial court applied the version of the law that included the duty to retreat. In State v. Miree and State v. Duncan, the Court will consider whether the updated self-defense law applies to this incident and impacted the murder convictions.

Pipeline Project
An Ohio utility applied to a state board in late 2022 to construct a 3.7-mile gas pipeline near Maumee. The utility said the project would connect interstate pipelines and provide more reliable natural gas service for 145,000 Lucas County customers. A commercial property owner objected to the project, noting the pipeline would run along the full length of a property boundary and be positioned 42 feet from the company’s building. In In re Application of Columbia Gas of Ohio, the property owner argues the utility used an accelerated process to bypass a complete evaluation of valid safety concerns. The board contends it properly analyzed the concerns, and the utility maintains no further evaluation was required.

Drug Trafficking Near Juveniles
Police searched the Chardon home of a suspected drug dealer in 2022. There were multiple adults and an infant on the first floor of the single-story home, and the male suspect was asleep in the basement. The man was convicted for various drug offenses, including drug trafficking committed in the vicinity of a juvenile – which made the crime a more serious felony. The “vicinity of a juvenile” is defined as within 100 feet of a child or within a child’s view. In State v. Dunn, the state asserts the circumstantial evidence established the suspect and the child lived in the house and the basement was within 100 feet of the first floor. The man counters that no evidence detailed the home’s square footage or specific floor plans, so whether the crime was committed within 100 feet of the infant wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wednesday, July 24
DNA Testing Applications
After an unsuccessful appeal of his 2016 murder conviction, a Cleveland man applied for postconviction DNA testing, hoping new evidence would change the outcome of his case. The trial judge denied the request without explanation, and the man appealed. As the appeal was pending, the prosecutor submitted to the trial judge “Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,” explaining in the prosecutor’s words why the man’s DNA testing request should be denied. The next day, the trial judge issued an order adopting the prosecutor’s facts and conclusion verbatim, and the prosecutor submitted it to the appeals court to argue the judge followed the law. In State v. Riley, the Court will consider whether the man’s testing request was wrongly denied because the trial judge immediately sided with the prosecutor without giving him an opportunity to respond.

Township Immunity
In 2017, a woman was driving on a Medina County road when a dead tree fell onto her car and killed her. The tree was partially on Montville Township park property, and the woman’s estate sued the township for wrongful death. The township claimed it was immune from a civil lawsuit. The township maintained it could only be responsible if a township employee’s negligence caused the woman’s injury, the accident occurred on the grounds of a building used in connection with a government activity, and the injury was due to physical defects on or within the grounds or buildings. The township maintained it wasn’t liable because the accident was on a county road, and no government buildings were nearby. In Estate of Cook v. Montville Township, the Court will consider whether there is enough evidence to prove the township is immune or the case should go to trial.

Body Camera Statements
A pregnant Cleveland woman who had been beaten spoke in the back of an ambulance to a police officer. The officer was wearing a body camera that recorded the March 2020 conversation, and the woman said her fiancé had struck her repeatedly. The woman didn’t testify at trial, but the body cam footage was provided as evidence. The fiancé was convicted of domestic violence. The conviction was overturned because the appeals court found the body cam video violated the man’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. In State v. Smith, the county prosecutor maintains the victim’s statements were admissible because they were part of an ongoing emergency. The man argues the emergency was over because the statements were made 30 minutes after the attack and in an ambulance.

Judicial Release
A woman was sentenced in three cases before two judges to 15 years in prison for her participation in several Columbus robberies. In State v. Kennedy, the woman asked the two judges to release her from prison. One judge said she didn’t qualify, but the other judge said she could be released. The second judge combined the sentences from all three cases to determine the woman met the requirements for release. However, the county prosecutor argues, state law says a judge can consider only the sentences that judge imposed. The woman responds that the judge could review all of her sentences, as long as the judge imposed at least one of them.