Criminal – Animal cruelty

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was convicted of animal cruelty, the commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving that the defendant unnecessarily failed to provide her dog with proper shelter and protection from the weather, but the evidence did establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unnecessarily failed to provide her with proper food and drink.

Affirmed.

“Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant, Amanda L. Bonia, was convicted of animal cruelty for having ‘unnecessarily fail[ed]’ to provide her dog ‘with proper food, drink, shelter, sanitary environment, or protection from the weather,’ in violation of G.L.c. 272, §77. …

“Relying on Commonwealth v. Russo, 494 Mass. 356, 365 (2024), the defendant contends that the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the Commonwealth had to prove that the defendant ‘intended Kayla to endure unnecessary suffering.’ The ruling in Russo is inapplicable, however, because it involved a different provision of the animal cruelty statute. The intent requirement for the provision charged here required the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant intentionally failed to provide Kayla with proper food, drink, or shelter. …

“Accordingly, the judge properly instructed the jury that the Commonwealth did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ‘the defendant knew she was violating the statute, or that she specifically intended the harm that it forbids’ but, rather, that she intentionally did acts that violated the statute. …

“The defendant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction under G.L.c. 272, §77. We conclude that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving that the defendant unnecessarily failed to provide Kayla with proper shelter and protection from the weather, but the evidence did establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unnecessarily failed to provide her with proper food and drink. …

“Here, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, … the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unnecessarily failed to provide Kayla with proper shelter. …

“By contrast, there was sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant unnecessarily failed to provide Kayla with proper food and drink. …

“The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient because it ‘not only failed to establish that [she] intended for Kayla to suffer unnecessarily but actually supported the opposite: [she] did not want this dog to suffer at the end of her life.’ The defendant refers to her own testimony that Kayla had stopped eating and drinking a week before June 11, 2020, and that she had sought to get Kayla euthanized. As discussed, however, the pertinent clause of G.L.c. 272, §77, does not require the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant’s conduct caused the animal harm but, rather, that the defendant unnecessarily failed to provide the animal with proper food or drink. … Here, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant unnecessarily left Kayla outside without food or water for substantial periods of time on numerous days. They could have also reasonably concluded that the defendant acted intentionally in doing so, and that her conduct amounted to a failure to provide food and drink required to keep Kayla in reasonably good health. …”

Commonwealth v. Bonia (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-003-26) (18 pages) (Toone, J.) The case was tried before Edward H. Sharkansky, J., in District Court. Meghan K. Oreste on appeal for the defendant; Carolyn A. Burbine for the commonwealth (Docket No. 24-P-818) (Jan. 15, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.

TEST3