Volosen v. State

The trial court found Appellant Mircea Volosen guilty of animal cruelty for killing a neighbors dog, a miniature dachshund named Ginger. The trial court sentenced Volosen to one years confinement, probated for two years. The sole issue we address in this appeal is whether the State met its burden of presenting legally sufficient evidence that Volosen was "without legal authority" to kill the dog. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 42.09(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2005). Because, by statute, a dog that "is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked . . . fowls may be killed by . . . any person witnessing the attack" and because no rational trier of fact could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Ginger was not attacking or had not recently attacked chickens in a pen in Volosens yard, we hold that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that Volosen killed the dog "without legal authority" as required to sustain a conviction for animal cruelty. Accordingly, we will reverse the trial courts judgment and render a judgment of acquittal.