IC 35-46-3-12
35-46-3-12 Beating vertebrate animal
Sec. 12. (a) This section does not apply to a person who euthanizes an injured, a sick, a homeless, or an unwanted domestic animal if:
(1) the person is employed by a humane society, an animal control agency, or a governmental entity operating an animal shelter or other animal impounding facility; and
(2) the person euthanizes the domestic animal in accordance with guidelines adopted by the humane society, animal control agency, or governmental entity operating the animal shelter or other animal impounding facility.
(b) “A person who knowingly or intentionally beats a vertebrate animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if:
(1) the person has a previous, unrelated conviction under this section; or
(2) the person knowingly or intentionally tortures or mutilates a vertebrate animal.”
Because I.C. § 35-46-3-12 does not define “mutilate,” we take the term in its plain, or ordinary and usual, sense. Boushehry, 648 N.E.2d at 1177-78; Elisea v. State, 777 N.E.2d 46, 48 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Webster defines “mutilate” as “to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ...” and “to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1493 (1966). See also Elisea, 777 N.E.2d at 48.
In the case at bar, the evidence most favorable to the conviction reveals that, unlike the first goose in Boushehry, the cat here did not die instantly; instead the cat was shot numerous times. Although shooting an animal once and killing it instantaneously does not constitute mutilation, here, the evidence most favorable to the verdict reveals that Chris shot at the cat approximately twenty times with a rifle, and Mark shot at the cat twice with a shotgun. Although there is no direct evidence on precisely how many times the cat was struck, the testimonial and photographic evidence reveals that the cat was hit multiple times. From this, a reasonable jury could conclude that the cat was mutilated, i.e., altered radically so as to be made imperfect. See State v. Roberts, 8 S.W.3d 124 (Mo.Ct.App.1999) (citing Webster's Third New International Dictionary in holding that the defendant's acts constituted “mutilation” as used in animal cruelty statute where defendant had beaten his dog until the dog's ribs were broken so that they cut and destroyed surrounding muscles and arteries), trans. denied; State v. Stout, 958 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.Ct.App.1997) (citing Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary in holding that defendant mutilated dog within meaning of animal cruelty statute by dragging it behind a truck resulting in removal of skin and pads on paws and exposure of nerve endings thereby impairing the paws' completeness and function over several weeks). This is not to say that every act of shooting an animal more than once is mutilation per se, but instead that given the circumstances of this case, the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendants' acts constituted mutilation in its plain and ordinary sense.
