Slaw

Slaw is a Canadian co-operative weblog about any and all things legal.

They began in 2005 with a focus on legal information and research, but now consider any aspect of law their meat and drink. Their audience is primarily lawyers, law librarians, and others working in or studying law. Their aim is to share knowledge, offer advice and instruction, and occasionally provoke.

They operate with a core of regular contributors and a penumbra of occasional contributors, as well as a significant roster of regular columnists. They have published literally thousands of entries and have received many more thousands of comments from their readers, who are not only Canadians but can also be found in dozens of countries around the globe. They have been honoured with quite a few awards: the 2008 and 2009 Blawgie for Best Overall Law-Related Blog, the 2009 Clawbie for Best Canadian Law Blog, and the Canadian Association of Law Libraries 2009 Hugh Lawford Award for Excellence in Legal Publishing, to mention a few.

 

NYLJ: Judge Squawks at Town’s Bid To Penalize Chicken Owners

Justice Court of Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County

Criminal Practice

People v. Mahoney, 10-11-0062

In the instant case, requiring the People to allege and prove that defendants’ animals were not household pets would not unfairly apportion the burden of proof. Quite simply, the People would be required to affirmatively allege and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the negative fact that the animals in question were not household pets. .

The court finds several additional deficiencies in the accusatory instrument. The information does not factually allege the property in question is possessed, occupied, or owned by the defendants, and does not even allege the chickens and other animals belonged to the defendants. It does not state how many chickens were observed, or provide any identifying facts as to what “other animals typically associated with farming and animal husbandry” means in the context of constituting the offense.

Based upon the foregoing facial insufficiencies, defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds the information is jurisdictionally defective is granted and the information is dismissed.