Thursday, March 13, 2008
Waco, TX - A 22-year-old man became the first McLennan County resident indicted under “Lillian’s Law” for a Nov. 26 incident in which his dogs reportedly attacked a 12-year-old Waco boy. Harris County (Houston) indicted the first owner in all of Texas.
Ancelmo Banda, of Waco, was indicted by a McLennan County grand jury on third-degree felony attack by dog charges. According to police records, Banda’s two pit bulls escaped their fencing through an improperly secured gate and made an “unprovoked attack” on Deodrick Ware, who was walking by.
The boy suffered deep bite wounds to the side and back of his leg. The boy, who lives two blocks from Banda, said that he was walking to school when the dogs escaped. One knocked him down and the other bit him. “I thought they were going to bite my leg off,” he said.
Under the law, named for 76-year-old Lillian Stiles, a Thorndale woman mauled and killed by a pack of pit bull-Rottweiler mixed-breed dogs in 2005, a dog owner can be prosecuted for a third-degree felony if his dog causes injury or death and it is found that the dog was improperly secured.
Labels: Lillian's Law
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 2/16/2009 7:31 AM |
Did this woman ever face justice?
Can't seem to find any media coverage about a trial or whether charges were dropped.
Lillian's Law seems to have little effect in preventing dog attacks, especially when the DA's don't aggressively pursue charges.
What is going on in Texas? It is almost as if prosecutors don't know the law exists.
| 2/16/2009 12:23 PM |
It's unclear what's going on in Texas. I did hear recently, however, that the DA that was "aggressively" pursuing prosecution against a rott mauling dumped the case! Here it is:
Dog mauling case on DA’s backburner
Late last week, rumors were rife throughout Bandera County that 216th District Attorney Bruce Curry had declined to present a felony dog mauling that occurred last October to a grand jury.
As the story was circulated, his decision was allegedly based on the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim and the difficulty in proving the owner of the dogs had been criminally negligent.