Posted on April 13, 2011 by Colleen Lynn

2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Frankfort Girl Mauled to Death by Pet Rottweiler

Katrina Mitchell was charged with endangerment after her rottweiler killed her baby.

Under the Influence
UPDATE 07/16/11: New details emerged in the criminal case against Katrina Mitchell. A police affidavit filed in court Friday stated that Mitchell began drinking beer about 3 pm that afternoon. Tests done later that night showed her blood alcohol level to be about .30, over three times the legal driving limit in Maine. Mitchell also tested positive for THC (marijuana). Two hours later, she passed out on the couch. At 7 pm, she awoke to her dead, clawed up child.

"The number of claw marks on Annabelle Mitchell's body were extensive and could not be the result of one or two brief contacts between the dog and Annabelle," wrote Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Michael Ferenc, who conducted the autopsy. He said the wounds showed the baby was "alive for at least part of the mauling, and she would have been capable of crying and/or screaming due to pain."

Endangering the welfare of a child is a Class D misdemeanor crime in the State of Maine, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. In a similar, but California scenario, Valerie Carlson was arrested and charged in April with five felony counts of cruelty to a child with possible injury or death after allegedly being "passed out drunk" on the couch when the family dog, Zeus, killed her 2-year old son. Carlson faced up to 19 years in prison afterward.

07/14/11: Mother Arrested and Charged
Bangor Daily News reports that three months after a family rottweiler mauled a 7-month old girl to death, authorities arrested the child's mother. Maine State Police arrested 29-year old Katrina Mitchell at her home on Wednesday and charged her with endangering the welfare of a child. Mitchell was taken to Waldo County Jail and held in lieu of $1,060 bail. Criminal charges were filed after discussions between the police and district attorney's office.

Annabelle was killed on April 12 in the living room of her home by the family rottweiler, named Hannibal. At the time of the incident, Annabelle's mother was asleep on the couch and her two-and-a-half-year old brother was in the home. Mitchell called 911 just before 7 pm to report the attack, but the toddler was dead when emergency responders arrived. The child's father, John Mitchelle, was not at home during the attack and later asked a deputy to shoot the dog.

04/13/11: Victim: Annabelle Mitchell
Bangor Daily News reports that a family rottweiler killed a 7-month old girl yesterday. Katrina Mitchell found her daughter in the living room of their home. Stephen McCausland, a spokesman for the Maine Department of Public Safety, said the child's mother called 911 after the incident. A Waldo County Sheriff’s Department deputy shot the animal dead at the request of the child's father. An autopsy of Annabelle Mitchell is scheduled to take place today.

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: U.S. Fatal Rottweiler Attacks By State

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Colleen Lynn

Attorney Comments After Judge Throws Out Felony Charges in Fatal Dog Attack Case

Jerry Yates daughter, Jami Southard, and flowers placed where his life ended.

Dead Men Tell No Tales archived
Calaveras County, CA - On March 22, Recordnet.com reported that Calaveras County Superior Court Assigned Judge Thomas A. Smith ruled that Sheryl Sellers would not face trial on felony charges after the mauling death of Jerry Yates. The judge cited California Penal Code Section 399, which requires prosecutors to prove that the person killed by vicious dogs took "reasonable precautions" to avoid harm. (This bizarre law places the burden of proof upon the dead victim.)

"There's a failure of any actual evidence as to what precipitated the attack," Judge Smith said. "What reasonable conduct did he engage in?"

Upon learning of this stunning injustice, DogsBite.org wrote to Yates' daughter, Jami Southard, expressing our great lament. Several other persons were included on this email's CC list. One of them was Kory Nelson, Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City and County of Denver, who had previously provided ideas to help Southard's family wade through recourse issues on behalf of himself not his office. After Judge Smith's ruling, Nelson replied to us with the following:

"California Penal Code Section 399 - requires prosecutors to prove that the person killed by vicious dogs took reasonable precautions to avoid harm"

While I am not an expert in the California Penal Code, and I am unaware if any other section would be more applicable to these facts, this overview of the law is quite disturbing for a number of reasons:

I know of no other criminal law that requires victims to take any action to avoid harm before the defendant can be convicted; a victim is a victim. Imagine if other criminal laws also put such a burden upon potential victims? What did the alleged victim of rape do to prevent being assaulted? What did the victim of the drive-by-shooting do to prevent bullets from penetrating their home? Did the pedestrian even attempt to jump out of the way of the car that ran the red-light? Did they jump in the correct direction - or high enough?
Dead men tell no tales. This law gives an advantage to those dog owners whose dogs actually kill, rather than merely maim or seriously injure, their victims. The law should never bestow a benefit upon a party for the infliction of a greater harm upon another party.
What if the victim were a child or an infant? How could such a victim take any action to avoid harm, let alone those that a trier of fact could be deemed to be reasonable? For every action of a child, I could pose a legal argument why their action was not reasonable:
1. The child attempted to run away from the dog [The child's actions sparked the dog's natural instinct to chase]
2. The child screamed [The child's action scared the dog, causing it to bite out of fear]
3. The child stepped on the dog's tail [natural reaction to pain]
The predictable debate over the term "reasonable precautions" fails to set the legal parameters for a jury to determine the outcome. Should the term be viewed from the perspective of the innocent actor who is completely ignorant of animal behavior - or from the perspective of the expert animal behaviorist? As described above, in the face of an aggressive dog, animal behaviorists would probably advise against turning and running away from the dog, as such behavior may spark the dog's natural instinct to chase its prey. However, a child or even an adult who has not had a significant amount of exposure to dogs may be understandably ignorant of such recommendations - therefore, would the dog owner's attorney be allowed to call expert witnesses to testify before the jury about such "common sense" dog behavioristics, such that the attorney would be allowed to argue the victim "caused" the attack by running away - an "unreasonable act" from the perspective of the highly educated expert?
Americans who, for whatever reason, are either unfamiliar with dogs - or who choose not to have dogs as pets - should not have their health, safety or welfare protected to a lessor standard merely because the party who brings a dangerous animal into their community would like to avoid their legal duty of protecting their fellow citizens from the dangers of their poor choices and/or poor animal management techniques. I'm certain these owners of dangerous dogs would like to displace their guilty and legal duty by shifting the duty of protection from the owner and manager of the dangerous implement to the innocent victim. Shame on the lawmakers for allowing such a perverted system of justice to allow innocent victims to be so unjustifiably exposed to such horrible dangers as a tenacious and vicious mauling by animals with sharp teeth who will bite and rip their victims bodies to shreds - the most horrible way for a human to die imaginable.

In conclusion, this law, if reported accurately in the news article, is a travesty to justice and should be changed immediately.

While it may be one thing to provide a legal defense to dog owners such that a child or adult who is physically abusing the dog, or is actually engaging in an unlawful act against the dog's owner - such as assault, or burglary, would not be protected by such a law - but is something completely different to place a legal duty on children and adults to take affirmative action to prevent the harm reasonably foreseeable by the dog owner. Maybe Lewis Carroll could appreciate the topsy turvy nature of this law - but it makes no logical sense to the rest of the world above the rabbit hole.

Kory Nelson, Esq.

DogsBite.org greatly thanks Mr. Nelson for his thoughtful and informative response. Most persons do not work within the legal system nor can we easily articulate the meaning of such a bizarre law or Judge Thomas A. Smith's interpretation of it. DogsBite.org grieves for Jami Southard and her family and most especially for Jerry's widow. We encourage all readers who have not yet watched the Calaveras Enterprise video, "Fatal Pit Bull Attack - A Closer Look" to watch it below.

Fatal Pit Bull Attack - A Closer Look from Calaveras Enterprise on Vimeo.

Posted on March 9, 2011 by Colleen Lynn

2011 Dog Bite Fatality: San Bernardino Woman Dies After Pet Pit Bull-Mix Attacks

Woman Dies After Attack
San Bernardino, CA - In a developing story, homicide detectives are investigating the death of Jennie Erquiaga, 47, who died at her home Sunday after being attacked by her dog. Police responded to the incident just after 10:00 pm. The dog, a pit bull-mix, inflicted wounds to Erquiaga's arms, left leg and shoulder. Medical issues beyond the attack may have contributed to her death. Autopsy results are expected from the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office.

In January 2011, Linda Leal of Colusa County suffered a similar fate. Last year, the State of California led dog bite fatalities with 7 deaths; pit bulls contributed to 83% (6).

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: California Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Colleen Lynn

2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Rottweilers Kill 3-Year Old Girl in Delaware County, Iowa

Vanessa Husmann, 3-years old, was killed by her grandfather's two rottweilers.

Family Speaks Out
UPDATE 03/07/11: New information has been released about the attack that killed Vanessa, including the 911 call made by Blake Muller.1 The child's mother, Rhonda Marty, said the girl was "never left unattended with the dogs. Somehow they had gotten out on their own." She said that the dogs might have dug underneath the fence surrounding the kennel. But no one knows for sure. The following day, family members "destroyed the kennel and removed it."

Marty also clarified that Vanessa went into her fenced-in backyard because it was "her yard." Her swing set was outside. "She came and went a lot," she said. The two rottweilers were kept in a separate, locked kennel in the same area, but for undetermined reasons got out that day (In the video, the mother's statement includes that the gate was "still locked" after the attack2). The Des Moines Register offers additional insight into Blake Muller's account that day.

03/07/11: Mauling Victim Identified
The young victim has been identified as Vanessa Husmann. The Des Moines Register reports that by the end of the day Sunday, persons working in the backyard of the family's home had removed all reminders of the little girl and the dogs, including: a swing set, a playhouse and the dog kennel. A painful photo depicts a yellow tractor removing a fence as well. The scene recalls a glimpse into what occurred after the death of Kaden Muckleroy last November.

Delaware County Sheriff John LeClere said the dogs where owned by the child's grandfather and were usually kept in Monticello. It was not known if the animals had a prior history of problems. According to LeClere, Vanessa's father, Vaughn Husmann, and her mother, Rhonda Marty, were not home when the attack occurred. The child had been left in the care of her brother, Brandon Marty. Family members did not comment. No charges have been filed.

The City of Hopkinton currently bans pit bulls. Mayor Cathy Harris said that City Council may add rottweilers to its list of prohibited breeds.

03/06/11: Death Investigation Continues
Information from WCRG-TV reveals that the babysitter was the victim's 18-year old half brother. Somehow the toddler got out of the house while under his care and into the backyard with the dogs. The child's grandparents were not home during the incident. A neighbor witnessed the mauling and called 911. Some neighbors said the family breeds rottweilers, others said they rarely saw the animals. The little girl's name has still not been released.

03/05/11: Toddler Killed by Rottweilers
Hopkinton, IA - In a developing story, two dogs killed a toddler Saturday in the small town of Hopkinton. The Des Moines Register reports that the girl was in a fenced backyard when the rottweilers attacked. Hopkinton is yet another rural town -- population of about 700 -- to be struck by a devastating fatal dog attack this year. KCRG-TV reports that the dogs belonged to the victim's grandparents, but at the time of the incident was being watched by a babysitter.

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: U.S. Fatal Rottweiler Attacks By State

1Blake Muller, an 18-year old student at Hawkeye Community College in Waterloo, was visiting his mother's house on Saturday who lives across the street from the Husmann family.
2This magical explanation not only refers to the somehow Maul Talk term, but may truly be otherworldly, such as a creature from the X-files re-locked the gate afterward.

Photo: Des Moines Register

DogsBite blog ::