P. v. Weinhart
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of numerous felony and misdemeanor charges, set out in a 63 count amended information, all of which stemmed from defendants operation of a facility called Tiger Rescue. Defendant had operated the facility, at which defendant housed various exotic animals including tigers and leopards, in Glen Avon under permits from the appropriate governmental agencies including the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Due to housing growth in the Glen Avon area, defendant was forced to move the facility in 1999 to a new location in Colton.
DFG officers obtained a search warrant for the Glen Avon property in April 2003 after receiving information that defendant had alligators and a tiger named Theo at that location. On April 22, 2003, around 7:00 a.m., DFG and Riverside County Animal Control officers executed that search warrant. As the officers approached defendants house, the second of two located behind a locked, gated entrance to the property, they were immediately struck by the stench of dead animals. In their subsequent search of the property, the officers found the carcasses of numerous dead animals, including about 30 tigers, in varying stages of decomposition. A broken refrigerator on the back patio of defendants house was full of decomposing dead animals. A juvenile tiger, later identified as Theo/C, who appeared to have mange which is a parasitic infection, was in a four-foot square cage on the patio, and another young tiger named Madison was secured to the patio by a chain no more than four feet in length. A veterinarian who later examined the tigers expressed the opinion that both animals were malnourished and had been subjected to needless suffering as a result of the fecal waste and urine contaminating the areas in which they were confined. The DFG and animal control officers also found other animals that had been neglected including dogs and chickens in cages without adequate food and water, and goats and burros that had difficulty walking due to overgrown hooves.
Defendant and his eight year old son were in the house when the officers entered to execute the search warrant. The inside of the house was filthy and smelled of animal feces. The kitchen sink was filled with dirty dishes, pots, and pans all covered with rotting food. Food in the refrigerator was rotten and unfit for human consumption. In the freezer compartment of the kitchen refrigerator, as well as in the freezer compartments of a refrigerator in the dining area and one on the patio, the officers found a total of 58 frozen tiger and leopard cubs. The veterinary pathologist who later examined the frozen cubs expressed the opinion that the animals were between three and five days old when they died and that the cause of death was starvation.
As reported and set out in the search warrant affidavit, the officers found two alligators in a bathtub in a bathroom. After they heard noise coming from the attic, the officers searched that area by lifting a ceiling tile and found nine infant tiger cubs and two infant leopard cubs (also referred to at trial as neonates), all of which were lethargic, cold, dehydrated, and hypothermic, conditions which are life threatening in the opinion of a veterinarian who testified at trial. When asked about the cubs, defendant told the officers that he did not know who had put them in the attic.
In this appeal, defendant raises various challenges to the jurys guilty verdicts, beginning with his assertion that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence recovered from his home because the search warrant pursuant to which that evidence was obtained did not accurately describe the premises to be searched, and concluding with his assertion that there were inconsistencies between the verdict form and jury instructions that require reversal of the guilty verdict on count 52. Court conclude defendants claims, which we recount in detail below, are meritless, and therefore Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Weinhart