Special Prosecutor Explains Why Goddard’s Law Does Not Currently Apply in Daniel Miller Animal-Cruelty Case
DanaMarie Pannella says Ohio law classifies sexual conduct with an animal as a second-degree misdemeanor unless evidence supports additional cruelty charges
ASHLAND, Ohio — The special prosecutor assigned to the case against Loudonville-area dog breeder Daniel A. Miller says an ongoing investigation has exposed what she views as serious shortcomings in Ohio’s animal-protection laws.
DanaMarie Pannella, an attorney with the law firm Holland & Muirden, spoke with ACP News following repeated questions from members of the public about why allegations involving sexual conduct with an animal are misdemeanors and why Ohio’s felony companion-animal cruelty law, commonly known as Goddard’s Law, does not currently apply.
Pannella said the answer rests on the evidence required under each law.
“Sexual conduct with an animal is a second-degree misdemeanor in the state of Ohio,” Pannella said. “That is what the legislature has chosen to give us for this.”
Under Ohio Revised Code Section 959.21, a person is prohibited from knowingly engaging in sexual conduct with an animal or knowingly possessing, purchasing or selling an animal with the intent that it be subjected to sexual conduct. The law also prohibits knowingly organizing, promoting, aiding or abetting such conduct.
Ohio law classifies a violation of that section as a second-degree misdemeanor. Ohio Revised Code Section 959.21 and Section 959.99 outline the offense and its penalty.
Pannella said Goddard’s Law may apply when prosecutors can prove that someone knowingly caused “serious physical harm” to a companion animal during such an act.
That legal requirement is different from Ohio’s sexual-conduct-with-an-animal statute, which does not require prosecutors to prove the animal suffered physical pain or injury.
“In order for Goddard’s Law to apply, there has to be serious physical harm to the animal,” Pannella explained. “At this stage in the investigation, we do not have an animal that evidences serious physical harm.”
Ohio Revised Code Section 959.131 defines serious physical harm as harm involving a substantial risk of death, permanent incapacity, substantial suffering caused by acute pain, or prolonged or intractable pain.
Knowingly causing serious physical harm to a companion animal is a fifth-degree felony under Ohio law. Ohio Revised Code Section 959.131 also contains separate provisions covering cruelty, neglect, deprivation of food and water, inadequate shelter and offenses involving kennel owners, managers or employees.
Pannella emphasized that the Miller investigation remains active and additional evidence could affect the charges.
“Further investigation could change things, but at the point we’re at right now, we don’t have the evidence to support [felony] charges,” she said.
Pannella said she was able to file some charges under provisions commonly associated with Nitro’s Law, which established specific offenses for owners, managers and employees of dog kennels.
“Some of the charges in this case were filed under what’s called Nitro’s Law, which was a specialized law that applied a heightened degree of crime to kennel owners, operators or managers,” Pannella said. “We were able to use Nitro’s Law here to boost the degree of some of these offenses.”
She also rejected the suggestion that dogs kept in a large breeding operation are treated like livestock under Ohio law.
“It does not have anything to do with that,” Pannella said.
Ohio’s companion-animal statute expressly includes any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept. The law’s livestock exclusion does not remove dogs from the definition of companion animals.
Pannella confirmed that the Miller case also includes allegations related to the care of animals.
“There are some neglect charges too, so there are some care issues,” she said.
Pannella said the sexual-conduct law closed a significant loophole because it allows prosecution based on the prohibited conduct itself. Prosecutors do not necessarily have to prove that the conduct caused pain or suffering.
Under general cruelty statutes and Goddard’s Law, however, the physical condition of the animal and the level of harm may (strike may) determine which charge can be supported.
“There may be acts of sexual conduct committed against animals that don’t necessarily cause serious physical harm,” Pannella said.
The statute also applies to knowingly possessing, buying or selling an animal with the intent that it be subjected to prohibited conduct, even if the person charged is not accused of personally committing a physical act against the animal.
“I am truly grateful that the state has a bestiality law because the bestiality law does not require proof of pain or suffering,” Pannella said. “It’s the mere conduct itself that qualifies.”
Before Ohio specifically criminalized sexual conduct with animals, Pannella said prosecutors faced difficulty when alleged behavior was clearly exploitative but did not produce evidence of physical pain or suffering.
“That was a huge loophole that was closed,” she said.
Prosecutor Calls for Stronger Penalties
Although she welcomed Ohio’s decision to outlaw the conduct, Pannella said she believes the existing law does not go far enough.
Among her concerns is that a conviction solely under the sexual-conduct statute does not provide the same authority for an indefinite animal-ownership prohibition that is available in certain (strike certain because it’s available in all CAC cases) companion-animal cruelty cases.
Ohio law allows a court to order forfeiture of an animal following a conviction under the sexual-conduct statute. It also allows a court to require psychological evaluation or counseling when a mental or emotional disorder contributed to the offense.
However, Pannella said stronger protections are needed, including longer or permanent restrictions on animal ownership and consideration of an adding such offenders to the sexual offender-registration requirement.
“I’m certainly glad that it was criminalized, but I think it does need to be reconsidered whether or not this particular law goes far enough to address this conduct,” she said.
Pannella noted that people convicted only of violating Ohio’s animal sexual-conduct statute are not placed on the state’s sex-offender registry.
“At least give us a permanent ban,” she said. “At least give us the ability to put these offenders on the registry.”
She also said she would like lawmakers to review the statute’s definitions because certain animals and forms of conduct may fall outside its current scope.
Under Section 959.21, the definition of “animal” is limited to a nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. Fish are not included.
Difficult Cases to Investigate
Pannella described sexual-conduct-with-an-animal cases as particularly difficult for authorities to investigate.
Tips may originate from photographs or videos, leaving investigators with the task of determining where the material was created, when it was created and who was involved. Those details must then be connected to a specific jurisdiction and supported with admissible evidence.
“These cases do come up from time to time,” Pannella said. “They’re some of the hardest cases to investigate.”
She added that possessing images depicting sexual conduct with animals is not, by itself, specifically prohibited under the current Ohio statute, a provision she considers another gap in the law.
Pannella said she has previously prosecuted cases under Ohio’s animal sexual-conduct law and has handled thousands of animal abuse and neglect cases during her career.
She also pointed to what she described as a recognized connection between the abuse of animals and offenses against vulnerable people, including children and intellectually disabled adults.
“Animals can’t consent,” Pannella said. “If that’s not enough for our legislators, you would think that the obvious link to sexual crimes committed against children would be enough to say, ‘This is really a crime that we need to take seriously.’”
Special Prosecutor Appointed Through Humane Society
Pannella explained that Ohio law permits county humane societies to appoint attorneys to prosecute animal-cruelty and neglect cases.
Humane societies frequently employ specially trained humane agents to investigate animal-related offenses. In Ashland County, the Sheriff’s Office assists with those investigative responsibilities.
The Humane Society of Ashland County selected Holland & Muirden to prosecute the Miller case.
Pannella said assigning attorneys who concentrate on animal-law cases helps ensure that complex investigations receive timely and specialized attention. That is particularly important when authorities are responsible for living animals that require daily food, shelter, veterinary treatment and other care while a criminal case moves through court.
“We can’t simply put animals in storage lockers,” Pannella said. “These are live animals who need timely resolutions to these cases.”
She also stressed that the Humane Society of Ashland County is primarily supported through donations rather than regular government funding.
“All of the care that’s given to these dogs, it’s only coming from donations,” Pannella said. “They’re not getting money from Ashland County to do this. They’re not getting money from any of the cities in Ashland to do this work.”
Investigation Remains Open
Pannella declined to discuss the specific evidence underlying the sexual-conduct allegations or whether investigators are examining the possible involvement of additional people.
“I know what you’re asking, and I can’t get into it specifically,” she said. “The investigation is not over.”
That distinction remains important as the criminal proceedings continue. Charges are accusations, and prosecutors must prove every element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pannella said continued public attention could encourage state lawmakers to reconsider the classification of the offense and provide courts with additional tools to protect animals.
“This is an important issue,” she said. “Every bit of attention we can get to the fact that the law is imperfect and needs some changes, that’s a good day for me, because these cases deserve that kind of attention.”
Miller’s case remains pending, and further charges or changes to the existing charges remain possible as the investigation develops.
Miller is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
