Flores

The People v. Flores

Good Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 372·216 Cal. App. 4th 251·2013 WL 1944000
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 13, 2013A135252California4,567 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

In this case, we are called upon to determine whether substantial evidence supports the conviction of defendant Armando Gonzales Flores regarding the attack on an elderly man by a pit bull owned by defendant. California does not criminalize mere ownership of a pit bull or any similar animal. However, if a person knows his or her animal is mischievous and fails to exercise ordinary care, and as a result a human being suffers serious bodily injury or death, that person may be prosecuted pursuant to Penal Code section 399. On appeal, defendant maintains he used ordinary care and that the victim’s injuries were not sufficiently severe so as to constitute serious bodily injury. We affirm.

I. EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

A. Prosecution’s Case

1. The Charged Incident

On December 12, 2011, nearly 90-year-old William Siemsen was living at 2827 Marlow Road in Santa Rosa. Having just finished lunch, he was sitting in a chair in the front yard of his house when a dog came from the house next door, got hold of his nine-year-old black Labrador, Luna, shook her and dropped her. The dog then bit Siemsen on his left leg below the knee.

Santa Rosa Police Officer Stephen Bussell was driving home…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.