Newsletter Signup
Stay up to date on all the latest news from Boston.com
Woman who did not euthanize her terminally sick dog did not commit a crime, Mass. top court finds
A dog owner was facing an animal cruelty charge when she didn't euthanize her terminally ill dog against the veterinarian's orders. The court said it's not a crime.
A woman who ignored her veterinarian’s advice to euthanize her dog but instead took him home to die did not commit a crime, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Monday in a case brought by state prosecutors and supported by multiple animal rights groups.
The state’s highest court unanimously agreed with the Quincy District Court and the Appeals Court that Maryann Russo cannot face criminal animal cruelty charges for taking her 14-year-old cocker spaniel, Tipper, home to die from his terminal illness in 2021.
Justice Frank Gaziano, who authored the opinion, said the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office failed to prove Russo intended to cause Tipper unnecessary harm, and “there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent.”
Advertisement:
“Our opinion should not be read to condone the conduct alleged in the complaint or take a position one way or the other regarding ‘complicated’ and ‘heartbreaking’ end of life decisions,” Gaziano wrote. “Instead, we hold, on these facts, that the defendant committed no crime.”
Jason Bolio, Russo’s attorney, told Boston.com Tuesday that he was “really happy” for her and her family.
“The case is all about her and what she’s been through in the last four years,” he said. “Her dog was seized from her four years ago and euthanized without even giving her the opportunity to say goodbye. She was prosecuted for felonies under the threat of jail for four years, so yesterday was a really good day for her and for her family.”
Russo brought Tipper to the vet twice
Russo initially brought Tipper to an animal hospital on Dec. 25, 2020, and the veterinarian recommended surgery to remove a large mass on his side, according to court records. Russo allegedly refused the surgery and took him home.
Advertisement:
Three weeks later, Russo brought the dog to the hospital again but in a worsened condition. According to the opinion, Tipper had a large necrotic mass and open bed sores, was unable to walk or stand, appeared to be anemic, and had difficulty breathing. Russo asked for the surgery initially recommended, but the vet said Tipper wouldn’t survive the procedure and recommended euthanasia.
Russo said she would have another veterinarian euthanize the dog, but the vet reported the incident. A state police officer followed up with Russo, who told investigators that Tipper was in good health and pain free, court docs said.
The investigator responded to the home and immediately disagreed when seeing Tipper, who “appeared to be deceased” but was taking shallow breaths, according to the court’s opinion. He obtained a warrant, and Tipper was euthanized.
Animal rights advocates: Decision “denies justice to Tipper”
Gaziano wrote that Russo and her family tried to make Tipper’s remaining time comfortable, which in part disproves her “conduct was willful.” The statute in Massachusetts requires someone to “knowingly and willfully” commit animal cruelty.
“The defendant brought Tipper to the animal hospital twice seeking medical care,” Gaziano wrote. “Faced with difficult choices, the defendant took Tipper home to die with the understanding that nothing could be done to alleviate his pain, short of euthanasia.”
Advertisement:
The state’s case was supported by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Rescue League of Boston, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
In a statement, the ALDF said they were “disheartened” by the decision but hope Massachusetts lawmakers will improve animal cruelty laws.
“(It) denies justice to Tipper who suffered in agony while his guardian refused to provide necessary palliative care, despite having easy access to medication and treatment options which would have alleviated Tipper’s pain,” senior staff attorney Kathleen Wood said. “This decision undercuts the clear intent of Massachusetts’ animal cruelty law, which is to protect animals from unnecessary pain and suffering.”
The Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the decision.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com