Instruction 7.270, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

G.L. c. 272, § 77

The judge should inquire of the prosecutor as to which theory or theories the Commonwealth

intends to pursue and instruct accordingly.

Intentional Conduct

The defendant is charged with intentionally causing cruelty to

animals.

To prove the defendant guilty of this charge, the

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at least one

of the following):

A. that the defendant intentionally (overdrove) (overloaded)

(drove when overloaded) (overworked) (tortured) (tormented)

(deprived of necessary sustenance) (cruelly beat) (cruelly

mutilated) or (cruelly killed) an animal; or

B. that the defendant intentionally caused or procured an animal

to be (overdriven) (overloaded) (driven when overloaded)

(overworked) (tortured) (tormented) (deprived of necessary

sustenance) (cruelly beaten) (cruelly mutilated) or (cruelly

killed); or

C. that the defendant intentionally used a live animal in a cruel or

inhuman manner in a race, game, or contest, or in training

therefor, as lure or bait (except an animal when used as lure or

bait in fishing); or

D. that the defendant had the charge or custody of an animal,

either as owner or otherwise, and intentionally inflicted

unnecessary cruelty upon it; or

E. that the defendant had the charge or custody of an animal,

either as owner or otherwise, and unnecessarily failed to

provide it with proper food, drink, shelter, sanitary

environment, or protection from the weather; or

F. that the defendant was the owner, possessor, or person

having the charge or custody of an animal, and (cruelly drove

or worked it when unfit for labor) or (carried it or caused it to

be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an

unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and

manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon).

The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant intentionally committed the act(s) alleged.

Intentionally means not by accident, but rather voluntarily and

deliberately. It is not necessary that the defendant knew that they

were breaking the law or that they specifically intended the harm,

but the Commonwealth must prove that they intended the act that

constitutes the offense.

“Specific intent to cause harm is not required; decisional law makes clear that in

circumstances involving the direct infliction of pain on an animal all that must be

proved is that the defendant intentionally and knowingly did acts which were plainly of

a nature to inflict unnecessary pain. The defendant’s guilt did not depend upon

whether he thought he was unnecessarily cruel, but upon whether he was so in fact.”

Commonwealth v. Szewczyk, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 711, 716 (2016), quoting

Commonwealth v. Magoon, 172 Mass. 214, 216 (1898). See also Commonwealth v.

Erickson, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 177 (2009) (internal citation omitted). See also Intent

instruction, 3.120 of the Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court (2009).

The clause prohibiting an owner or custodian of an animal from unnecessarily failing to

provide proper food, drink, shelter, sanitary environment, or protection from the

weather does not require proof that the person intended to cause the animal harm or

actually caused harm. Rather, it requires proof that the defendant intentionally failed to

provide one or more of the listed necessities. See Commonwealth v. Bonia, 106 Mass.

App. Ct. 421, 424-26 (2026).

Willful Conduct

There is a second way in which a person may be guilty of

cruelty to animals. Instead of intentional conduct, it involves willful

conduct. To prove the defendant guilty of this charge, the

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at least one

of the following):

A. that the defendant was the owner, possessor, or person

having the charge or custody of an animal and willfully

abandoned it. To prove the defendant acted “willfully,” the

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

the defendant intended both the underlying action and its

harmful consequences; or

B. that the defendant knowingly and willfully authorized or

permitted an animal to be subjected to unnecessary torture,

suffering, or cruelty of any kind. The defendant acted

knowingly if the defendant consciously authorized or

permitted something that the defendant was aware would

subject an animal to “unnecessary torture, suffering or

cruelty of any kind.” The defendant acted “willfully” if the

defendant intended both the underlying action and its harmful

consequences. In other words, the Commonwealth must

prove the defendant intended for the animal to be subjected

to “unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty.”

Commonwealth v. Russo, 494 Mass. 356, 365 (2024).

The term “cruelty” means inflicting severe or unnecessary

pain upon an animal without any justifiable cause.

Commonwealth v. Daly, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 48, 54-55 (2016).

The term “necessary sustenance” includes food, nourishment,

and the necessities of life.

See Commonwealth v. Curry, 150 Mass. 509, 511-512 (1890); Commonwealth v. Waller, 90

Mass. App. Ct. 295, 303 (2016); Commonwealth v. Pina, 74 Mass. App. 1117, n. 2 (2009)

(unpublished).

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION

Bona Fide Discipline. Therefore, the defendant is not guilty if (1)

the use of force against the animal was reasonable; and (2)

the force was reasonably related to the purpose of

safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the animal,

including the prevention or punishment of conduct by the

animal.

Commonwealth v. Adams, 495 Mass. 600, 608-609 (2025).

If the Commonwealth has proved all the elements beyond a

reasonable doubt, you should return a verdict of guilty. If the

Commonwealth has not proved one or more of the elements beyond

a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.