The city on Friday agreed to pay the $4,000 in housing costs for the two dogs since the November 2012 incident. And the owner of the pit bulls waived his rights and agreed to allow the dogs to be euthanized.
Gerard Matthews, 23, is the owner of the two American pit bull terriers, named Nyla and Roxxy, who attacked Anne Stills, 63, and her dog on a sidewalk off West Alameda Street on Nov. 12.
Stills was walking her longhaired Chihuahua, named Lillie, when the dogs attacked. Stills was bitten three times and sustained multiple puncture wounds despite wearing a heavy winter coat. Lillie was killed. “It looked like they were tossing her around like a stuffed toy,” Stills testified. “She was the love of my life. She was my companion.”
Assistant City Attorneys Alfred Walker and Krishna Picard called Stills and other witnesses, including two people who tried to help Stills, to the stand Friday.
They also called Animal Control Officer Jason Apodaca, who said Matthews signed the quarantine forms that acknowledged the dogs would be taken into custody and outlined the $40-per-day charge. That was evidence that he was the owner of the animals, the city maintains.
But in response to a question from Matthews’ defense attorney, Tom Clark, Apodaca said Matthews never stated he was the dogs’ owner.
The state rested its case after Apodaca’s testimony, and Clark motioned for a directed verdict from Municipal Judge Ann Yalman, telling her that the state didn’t provide an “iota” of proof that Matthews was the owner of the animals — or financially responsible for them.
Walker then offered a deal: If Matthews waived his ownership of the dogs, the city would pay for the cost of housing them for four months and euthanizing them. Matthews agreed and signed an agreement hastily written out on paper from a yellow legal pad.
Matthews was facing charges of harboring vicious animals and allowing them to run at large, but under the agreement with the city, he was allowed to plead not guilty to all charges.
Walker said the city’s main objective was to make sure the dogs were never out on the street again. “This seemed to be the best option after presenting all of the evidence,” he said.
After the hearing, Matthews said he had been trying for a month to find a pit bull sanctuary where the dogs could be sent to live out their lives. However, he said, such places already have too many animals.
“The whole thing is a sad situation,” Matthews said. “But to have to lose the lives of two other dogs [Nyla and Roxxy] to make someone happy is too bad.”
Stills said she was happy the dogs would never hurt anyone again, but said it was unfortunate that Matthews “had to waste all this time only to waive ownership.”
“I’m sad that animals have to be destroyed, but I’m glad that they can’t hurt anyone else,” she added.
Stills’ personal attorney, Stephanie Zorie, added afterward that the two are planning civil action against Matthews and possibly others and that the decision in this case “doesn’t make any difference at all.”
“Somebody’s got to be responsible for the medical bills,” Stills said.
Stills said she still suffers from symptoms related to the attack four months ago and has been referred to a neurologist for damage to her elbow and her left leg that is constantly “cold and wet” since one of the dogs bit her.
She also said she is adopting two new dogs, a Chihuahua puppy and a young Chihuahua-Papillon mix, from Dew Paws Rescue in Santa Fe, but she said she still cries every night over Lillie.
The Matthews case points out some problems with the city’s animal control ordinance.
Under the ordinance, the city had to prove that Matthews’ dogs were vicious in order to have them euthanized. And to do that, the law requires the city to show that the dogs caused “great bodily harm” or death to an animal or human.
Great bodily harm includes serious disfigurement, high probability of death or loss or prolonged impairment of a body part or organ.
Clark argued that the attack on Stills doesn’t meet the legal standard for a vicious attack, and the judge agreed.
“I think what happened here was an example of a vicious attack in regards to the dead dog but not to Ms. Stills,” Yalman said. “We may need to look at that city ordinance.”
If Lillie had not been killed, Clark pointed out, the city would not have had a case.
“The maiming of a human being, when they recover, is not enough to constitute a vicious animal charge, but the killing of a small animal does,” Clark said. “Just goes to show you how much Santa Fe loves its animals.”
(The New Mexican - February 22, 2013)
