John Dunham Research Paper
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Scott L. Haddock, Supervising Attorney
From: Doe Paralegal
Date: 2/25/2012
Re: Potential Crimes and Affirmative Defense of Wildlife on Private Property; Client File 1234: John Dunham
On September 11, 2011, our client, John Dunham, shot and killed three trespassing hunting dogs on his property. He then used his dog as a deadly weapon to injure Jesse Hester, owner of the hunting dogs. Dunham raises an affirmative defense that he was merely protecting wildlife on his property and possessed a legal right to do so. Pursuant to my research, Dunham will most likely be charged with three crimes and unable to raise an affirmative defense to protection of wildlife on private property.
I. Potential Crimes of Dunham
A. RCW 9.08.070 Pet Animals- Unlawful Killing
The issue is whether a defendant can …show more content…
The legislature has made it clear that a person who "knowingly" and "maliciously" causes physical damage to the property of another in an amount exceeding seven hundred and fifty dollars is guilty of a class C felony. A class C felony is punishable by confinement for five years or by a fine in an amount of ten thousand dollars, or by both confinement and fine. RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c). In State v. Long, finding malicious mischief required finding of mental state of knowledge and maliciousness, as well as finding that pet was monetarily valued. State v. Long, 98 Wash. App. 669, 991 P.2d 102 (2000). Dunham destroyed exceptionally valuable animals, worth in excess of $1,500 each, when he shot dead Hester's three hunting dogs. Dunham knowingly caused destruction of valuable property by shooting at his dogs and should have known this would kill them causing their destruction of life. Therefore, it is most likely Dunham will be charged with malicious mischief in the second
To: Scott L. Haddock, Supervising Attorney
From: Doe Paralegal
Date: 2/25/2012
Re: Potential Crimes and Affirmative Defense of Wildlife on Private Property; Client File 1234: John Dunham
On September 11, 2011, our client, John Dunham, shot and killed three trespassing hunting dogs on his property. He then used his dog as a deadly weapon to injure Jesse Hester, owner of the hunting dogs. Dunham raises an affirmative defense that he was merely protecting wildlife on his property and possessed a legal right to do so. Pursuant to my research, Dunham will most likely be charged with three crimes and unable to raise an affirmative defense to protection of wildlife on private property.
I. Potential Crimes of Dunham
A. RCW 9.08.070 Pet Animals- Unlawful Killing
The issue is whether a defendant can …show more content…
The legislature has made it clear that a person who "knowingly" and "maliciously" causes physical damage to the property of another in an amount exceeding seven hundred and fifty dollars is guilty of a class C felony. A class C felony is punishable by confinement for five years or by a fine in an amount of ten thousand dollars, or by both confinement and fine. RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c). In State v. Long, finding malicious mischief required finding of mental state of knowledge and maliciousness, as well as finding that pet was monetarily valued. State v. Long, 98 Wash. App. 669, 991 P.2d 102 (2000). Dunham destroyed exceptionally valuable animals, worth in excess of $1,500 each, when he shot dead Hester's three hunting dogs. Dunham knowingly caused destruction of valuable property by shooting at his dogs and should have known this would kill them causing their destruction of life. Therefore, it is most likely Dunham will be charged with malicious mischief in the second