Harris Case - Judge`s Entry

IN THE GALLIPOLIS MUNICIPAL COURT, GALLIPOLIS, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff,
-vs-
CASE NO. 14CRB157
JASON HARRIS,
Defendant.
JOURNAL ENTRY
Defendant, an assistant dog warden, is charged with negligently administering
injection
of sodium pentobarbital
unnecessary and/or
unjustifiable
to twelve
(12) specific companion
an intramuscular
animals thus causing
pain or suffering when there was a reasonable remedy or
relief available, in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 959.131(C)(1).
The facts, consisting of a video recording of a statement
County Sheriff's
Office
made by the defendant
Chief Richard Grau and Lieutenant
Kevin Werry,
to Gallia
show that the
defendant was given the task of euthanizing twelve dogs which were confined at the Gallia
County Animal Shelter. One dog was euthanized on September 18, 2013, and the other eleven
were euthanized on February 14, 2014. The defendant said that he did attend a training on the
intracardial
injection method of euthanizing dogs, received appropriate
certification,
he follows the training that he received. Defendant stated that his certificate
certification
and only for administration
and that
was a lifetime
of the one drug, sodium pentobarbital.
At the
training, defendant was instructed that one could use the same drug, sodium pentobarbital,
to
both sedate and then euthanize a dog. The defendant testified that he was trained to use 1
cubic centimeter
per 10 pounds to euthanize a dog. His training instructed him to inject into
the "meaty part" of the hip or shoulder of a dog, an amount of the sodium pentobarbital
sufficient to sedate the dog. After the dog is sedated, or "goes to sleep," the rest of the sodium
pentobarbital
is injected into the heart of the dog to actually euthanize it. Defendant said that
all the dogs were asleep before he administered the intracardial injection.
The defendant
told the officers that the county animal shelter now has its own license to
purchase the sodium pentobarbital
that is used in the euthanasia process.
Formally, the drug
was purchased from local veterinarians.
The defendant stated that he was not aware of a written
Animal Shelter, and specifically,
conduct euthanasia.
policy governing the Gallia County
he was not aware of any written
policy concerning
how to
Further, defendant said he has served as assistant dog warden twice in his
career. He served three years with a former warden, was away from the position for four years,
then returned to that position.
Defendant said that the procedure that he used to euthanize
the twelve dogs that are the subject of this case is the same procedure that was used during his
first tenure as assistant dog warden and that, upon returning
procedure had not changed.
after a four year absence, the
The only thing that had changed was the manner in which the
staff disposed of the bodies of the dogs.
Regarding the euthanizations
performed
no written or verbal notification
said that there was
given to him that any of the dogs were to be rescued.
in the week, the county administrator
dogs. According to defendant,
on February 14, 2014, defendant
Earlier
and the dog warden told him to euthanize some of the
none of the cards on the dogs' pens indicated the dogs were to
be rescued. Most of the dogs had been in the shelter six to eight months.
Dr. Brian Hendrickson, a local veterinarian,
"caustic" agent.
He testified that sodium pentobarbital
nervous function
pentobarbital
testified that sodium pentobarbital
and can ultimately
administered
is an irritant, a
is an anesthetic agent that suppresses
stop the heart.
Further,
he testified
that sodium
in a muscle and the insertion of the needle would cause pain. Dr.
Hendrickson also testified
that the American Veterinary
Euthanasia, state that intramuscular
injection
is an unacceptable
euthanasia because of the limited information
pain in an awake animal."
Guidelines on
practice for accomplishing
and "high probability
of
The AVMA is a handbook of best practices for veterinarians
to
reference in their day to day practices.
would cause severe irritation,
Medical Association
Dr. Hendrickson testified that intramuscular
inflammation,
He testified that an intramuscular
as to its effectiveness
injection
burning and stinging at the site of the injection.
injection is unacceptable, by itself as a method of euthanasia.
because it would cause a slow death. Dr. Hendrickson stated that some sodium pentobarbital
solutions contain a numbing agent but the particular kind used by the Shelter did not.
Dr. Hendrickson testified that euthanasia by intracardial
injection of the sodium pentobarbital
must only be done on a sedated dog.
In response to cross examination,
Dr. Hendrickson agreed that, just like humans, dogs have
various pain tolerances.
he agreed that,
administration,
Further,
the dog would experience
if the vein is missed in an intravenous
a sensation of pain and that any time a needle
pierces the skin, there is a sensation of pain.
The defendant called another local veterinarian,
pentobarbital
Dr. Angela Dahse, who testified
does cause sedation and, with an overdose, death.
that sodium
She did say that sodium
pentobarbital
is not normally used as a sedative and not normally injected into the muscle but
that, if necessary, it could be done.
She testified that sodium pentobarbital
is not the most
caustic drug used to sedate an animal and that another drug which is more caustic is routinely
used to sedate prior to surgery.
Dr. Dahse testified
that dogs react differently
to pain.
She also testified
that to determine
whether a particular dog was feeling pain, one would need to be present to be able to gauge a
dog's reaction.
Dr. Dahse noted that the drug insert for sodium pentobarbital
injection is prohibited.
The manufacture's
insert with the sodium pentobarbital
"calculated dose should be given in a single bolus injection."
sodium pentobarbital
does not say that muscular
states that the
Dr. Dahse noted that injection of
into a muscle is not more painful than if an untrained
person tried to
inject it into a vein without success.
Dr. Dahse testified
pentobarbital,
that if the only method she had to sedate a dog was to inject sodium
she would use that drug prior to euthanizing it. Dr. Dahse testified that one half
milliliter per ten pounds of dog would have been sufficient to sedate the dog.
She also noted
that any injection causes pain.
Both doctors testified that sodium pentobarbital
is not normally used for sedation.
Ohio Revised Code Section 4729.532(A) provides:
No agent or employee of an animal shelter shall perform euthanasia by means of lethal
injection on an animal by use of any substance other than combination
pentobarbital
manufactured
and
at
least
one
noncontrolled
substance
active
drugs that contain
ingredient,
in
a
dosage form, whose only indication is for euthanizing animals ...... The agent
or employee of an animal shelter when using a lethal solution to perform euthanasia on an
animal shall use such solution
in accordance with the following
methods
and in the
following order of preference:
(1) Intravenous injection by hypodermic needle;
{2} Intraperitoneal
injection by hypodermic needle;
(3) Intracardial injection by hypodermic needle;
(4) Solution or powder added to food.
Ohio Revised Code §4720.532{C}{2}
states:
"Any agent or emplevee
of an animal shelter
performing euthanasia by means of lethal injection shall do so only in a humane and proficient
manner that is in conformity
with the methods described in division (A) of this section and not
in violation of Chapter 959 of the Revised Code."
Ohio Revise Code §959.131{C)(1} states:
"No person who confines or who is the custodian or
caretaker of a companion animal shall negligently do any of the following:
by which unnecessary or unjustifiable
pain or suffering
... (1) Commit any act
is caused, permitted
or allowed to
continue, when there is a reasonable remedy or relief, against the companion animal ...."
Unnecessary or Unjustifiable Pain From Injection
The complaints against the defendant allege that the injection of sodium pentobarbital
unnecessary or unjustifiable
available.
caused
pain or suffering when there was a reasonable remedy or relief
The State presented evidence, through the testimony of Dr. Hendrickson's recitation of the best
practices as set forth
pentobarbital
in the AMVA guidelines to euthanasia, that the injection
as a euthanasia method had a "high probability"
of sodium
of causing pain to an animal.
However, even though each of the twelve complaints specifically identifies a separate animal,
the State did not present any evidence specific to the unnecessary pain and suffering allegedly
caused to each of those identified
animals.
like humans, each animal is different
Each of the doctors who testified opined that, just
and would have different
experience pain are able to communicate
pain tolerances.
that suffering to an observer.
Dogs who do
As would apply to
humans, it would be impossible to determine whether unnecessary or unjustified
pain is being
experienced without observing a dog's reaction.
If one conducted a study with twelve human beings where each is given an injection,
would have differing reactions.
all.
Even if the injection
reactions.
Some will feel no or little pain, some may have no reaction at
is not caustic, some may feel pain and some may have severe
Some may experience an allergic reaction, or a vasovagal reaction.
that some will feel pain.
several
But, without
observation,
it cannot be determined
It is assumed
who and how
much.
Of the twelve dogs to whom the sodium pentobarbital
certain that some felt pain.
was administered
intramuscularly,
it is
Both doctors opined that a sedative injection into a muscle causes
pain simply because of the piercing of the skin with a needle. While Dr. Hendrickson said that
sodium pentobarbital
injection
into a muscle causes stinging and burning, Dr. Dahse testified
that any injection into a muscle causes pain and that there are other sedatives that are more
caustic and regularly used for injection into a muscle prior to surgery or treatment.
The only person present at the incident was the defendant.
The defendant did not say that any
of the dogs exhibited signs of pain and suffering upon administration
into the muscle as a sedative.
He did say that, once the dogs were "asleep," he administered
final intracardial dose to cause their death.
unnecessary or unjustifiable
It is an unfortunate
of sodium pentobarbital
a
He did not observe that any of the dogs suffered
pain during the final administration
of the drug.
fact of our society that we, at times, must euthanize animals. It would be a
wonderful situation if every dog which ends up in a government animal shelter could be saved.
In a perfect world, the government
Euthanasia is not treatment,
would never have to control animal populations.
but is necessary. When it is necessary to euthanize, the procedure
must be done in a humane
unnecessary or unjustifiable
manner.
Where there
is evidence that an animal suffered
pain or suffering, the one so inflicting the pain should be held
accountable.
However, this is a criminal case and it is the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that pain was suffered and that it was unnecessary or unjustifiable.
The State has failed to
address each dog as an individual case. Further, the State did not present any evidence that
any of the injected or euthanized dogs suffered any unnecessary or unjustifiable
suffering.
A generalized
suggestion of a "high probability"
reasonable doubt that pain was experienced.
defendant administered
pain and/or
of pain is not proof beyond a
The only evidence presented shows that the
a sedative and did not mention in his statement that any of the dogs
exhibited signs of suffering.
humane to sedate the dogs.
While the injection may have caused pain, it was necessary and
Reasonable Remedy or Relief
Much testimony concerned the preferred methods of euthanasia, as set forth in the statute and
in the
best practices
of the
American
Veterinarians
Medical
Euthanasia as well as the American Humane Society guidelines.
Association
Guidelines
to
These Guidelines, formulated
for veterinarians, all set forth a preference of acceptable methods. The Guidelines presume the
skill of a trained veterinarian.
The existence of these Guidelines
available to the defendant.
intracardial injection.
do not prove that any other method
Defendant was trained and certified in the third preferred method,
There is no evidence that he, or any of the prior wardens, was trained in
intravenous injection or in intraperitoneal
the least preferred
conducted
training
of euthanasia was
(food) - method
injection.
of euthanasia.
Defendant used the third preferred
Dr. Hendrickson
testified
- not
that he had
sessions with one former warden, Ms. Daniels, for her to learn how to
administer sodium pentobarbital
intravenously,
but there was no evidence presented that she
or any other warden ever achieved proficiency at that method.
Drs. Hendrickson and Dahse
testified that failure to perform intravenous injection successfully would cause pain.
The State has not shown that the defendant had any access to any other drug for the sedation
of the dogs. Further, the State has not shown that the defendant
had
anyone else available
who could have procured any other drug for him - or who could have administered
even the sodium
euthanasia.
pentobarbital,
intravenously
Defendant is not a veterinarian.
for him before
any drug,
he was to accomplish
the
There is no evidence in the record that Defendant
has any special certifications
or qualifications
that would allow him to obtain any drug other
than sodium pentobarbital.
The State has not proved that the defendant was trained in any other method of euthanasia.
There can be, then, no finding that he simply refused to use any other method.
Further, the
State has not proved there was a reasonable remedy or relief available to the defendant.
Euthanasia process
The euthanasia process that the defendant
AMVA Guidelines for veterinarians.
pentobarbital
in accordance with the
Although the Guidelines call for sedation of the animal,
they do not say that sodium pentobarbital
that it is not normally
used was not completely
cannot be used for sedation.
used for sedation.
However,
Both doctors testified
Dr. Dahse testified
that
if sodium
is the only drug she had available to sedate an animal before euthanasia is
performed, then she would use it for sedation.
Dr. Dahse testified that one half milliliter
per
ten pounds of dog would have been sufficient to sedate the dog.
The manufacture's
insert with the sodium pentobarbital
be given in a single bolus injection."
states that the "calculated dose should
That wording does not appear to be a commandment.
so, it would use the directives of "shall" or "must."
If
To a person who was trained to use part of
the syringe of the drug to sedate an animal and the remainder to provide the final end of life,
the insert with the suggestive use of the word "should," does not put him on notice that his
method is incorrect.
_I
II I .....
V .....
...,...,
....I
1
VI
..... IJ-...,"'.IU""'I"-
tJU11'
U"U
...Iu"\-II"5
u."
U
'\--,\A'",
v,
",'I\;
tJ1U\,.\:;:\..IU'C;.
Because the State has failed to show that any of the specific dogs identified
complaints suffered any unnecessary or unjustifiable
in the twelve
pain or suffering, the defendant must be
found not guiltv. Further, because the State has failed to show an available, reasonable remedy
or relief, the defendant must be found not guilty.
It is so ORDERED.
-,
Margaret E~sl
Judge
The clerk is directed to send a copy of the foregoing Entry to: Adam Salisbury, Gallipolis City
Solicitor and William Cole, Attorney for Defendant.
shared drive: entrv-doq case2 4 1 15