HERALD-LEADER (Lexington, Kentucky) 25 June 04 Former Pet-Store Owner Challenges Law's Constitutionality (Bill Estep)

Somerset: A former pet-store owner has pleaded guilty to a charge that outraged animal lovers -- feeding a crying kitten to a large snake -- but continues to argue the animal-cruelty law is unconstitutional.

Stephan A. Jones, 40, entered a conditional guilty plea to second-degree animal cruelty, a misdemeanor, on May 27. Judge William Cain sentenced him to 60 days in jail, probated for two years, and fined him $500.

The condition, however, was that Jones would continue his challenge to the cruelty law, according to court records.

Jones' attorney, Kathryn G. Wood, filed a notice of appeal to Pulaski Circuit Court yesterday.

If Jones wins his argument that the law under which he was charged is not constitutional, his sentence will be set aside, Wood said.

The case has been pending in local courts for well over two years. A sheriff's deputy arrested Jones in September 2001 after a complaint that he fed a kitten to a caged, 10-foot-long python at a pet store he operated south of Somerset, while two other men watched.

A one-time store employee told the Herald-Leader the kitten screamed in terror before the snake swallowed it. The woman said Jones had fed kittens to the snake at other times, too.

Indignant animal lovers -- some of whom banded together under the name Millie McQuire, after one woman's cat -- picketed Jones' store, passed out fliers and pushed for stiff prosecution by county attorney Bill Thompson.

Jones' attorney argued from early in the case that the law on cruelty to animals is unconstitutional because it is too poorly worded, vague and broad to be enforceable, and is open to arbitrary and unjust prosecution.

Society might make a distinction between cats and other animals, Wood said, but the animal-cruelty law does not. Under the law, for instance, it would be illegal to kill a mouse in a mousetrap, or to fail to get medical help for a skunk run over on the road, Wood has said in court documents.

But no one gets prosecuted for feeding mice or rats to other animals because that is generally accepted by the public, Wood said.

"So, feeding rats to a snake is OK, feeding cats to a snake supposedly is not, even though the statute makes no such distinction," she said in one motion.

Thompson, however, has argued that the law is clear enough for an ordinary person to know that feeding a kitten to a snake is cruel. The public clearly recognizes a difference in the treatment of cats and other animals, especially rodents, he said.

"Even Mr. Jones knew kittens were pets because he sold them in his store as such. When he wasn't feeding them to his snake," Thompson wrote in one motion.

Jones lost his request to have the charge thrown out in district court based on the constitutionality issue.

District Judge Walter F. Maguire said some of Jones' arguments stretched common sense. Any ordinary person would know that feeding an animal widely regarded as a pet to a snake would be seen as cruel under the law, the judge said.

Jones appealed that ruling to circuit court but a judge said the appeal couldn't proceed until the criminal charge was resolved in district court.

Jones sold the snake after he was charged. He later closed the pet store; he is having health problems and has also left his job at the state food-stamp office, Wood said.
Former Pet-Store Owner Challenges Law's Constitutionality

[ Show Entire Thread ]