Remember back in December when the little girl was killed in Show Low by 3 pit bulls? WELL.....the OWNER is NOW in PRISON serving a 5 year SENTENCE!!
http://www.wmicentral.com
Killer pit bulls'owner sent to prison
By: Donna Rescorla, The Independent 08/26/2005
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly
Janice Caulkins
HOLBROOK — The owner of pit bulls that killed a 5-year-old girl in Show Low has been sentenced to prison.
Judge Tom Wing sentenced Janice Caulkins, 38, to five years in the Department of Corrections, the presumptive term (that merited by the facts) for manslaughter. She had earlier pled guilty to manslaughter in the Dec. 13, 2004, death of Annilee McKinnon.
The hearing began with Prosecutor Dan Healy calling several of Caulkins’ neighbors who testified of seeing the dogs run loose. A woman testified they were in her yard and growled when she tried to get to her car. A man said he saw police cars in front of the Caulkins house after he lodged a complaint about the dogs, although he couldn’t say whether the officers talked to her. It was also stated that Caulkins knew the dogs ran loose because she would sometimes call them back into the yard.
Later, Defense Attorney Paula King called a number of children, several of whom lived in the house, who testified they played with or petted the dogs and they were always friendly. Several adults also testified the dogs were friendly.
The most in-depth testimony from both sides was those of expert witnesses, both of whom testified by telephone.
Ronald Berman, who operates a dog training and dog behavior business in California and appeared in court 52 times as an expert witness, testified for the defense.
Asked by King what the signs of a dangerous, aggressive dog are, he said there was a difference between a violent dog and one who was rough.
“Attacks are usually offensive or defensive,” he said. “They attack because, to a dog, that person or dog is a threat because they are protecting their territory, something was taken from them or they feel they are protecting their owner.”
Dogs may also attack because of redirected aggression. He gave an example of children chasing a dog and another child passing, and the dog goes after that child.
“If a dog attacks other animals, is it a threat to children?” King asked.
“No,” Berman said, “they’re different dynamics. Dog on dog aggression is not related to attacks on persons. Aggressive behavior depends on the individual dog, not the breed.”
“If dogs play frequently with children, would there be a problem?” King asked.
“It could be for those who aren’t socialized,” Berman said. “It seems this is not the case here. The dogs played with kids every day and were rather good with kids.”
Asked why he thought the dogs killed Annilee, he said, “ One way would be her brother screaming and ran — what prey does. They reacted as a predator. Someone mentioned she was holding a cat and it could be the dog to animal aggression.”
“Do you agree they are more aggressive when running in a pack?” Healy asked.
“They could be on occasion, based on the situation,” Berman said. “It won’t make them aggressive if they aren’t but if they are, they could be more aggressive.”
“What is the responsibility of an owner?” Healy asked. “If dogs are allowed to run through the neighborhood, if they are ‘intact’ animals, if they are not supervised, if two aren’t housebroken. Would you consider that a responsible dog owner?”
Tom Schafer – The Independent
One of the Caulkins’ dogs was held briefly by Show Low Animal Control. The dogs were destroyed.
Berman said letting dogs run loose in a city that made that illegal was irresponsible but if there was no law against it, it wouldn’t be irresponsible.
Prosecution’s expert witness, Dr. Suzanne Hetts, who has a PhD in animal behavior and has done scientific research on animal behavior, said not all dogs are equally dangerous but can switch into aggression at any time.
Asked if they could have redirected aggression to Annilee if she was holding a cat, Hetts replied, “I don’t think so. There was no way she would have held onto the cat. It would take off and the dogs would have gone after it.”
“What triggered the attack?” Healy asked. “
“It started with the selection of the breed,” Hetts said. “When you acquire a dog for protection, it has an aggressive tendency. Responsible owners need to take extra care to train, socialize and supervise and that wasn’t done.”
Adding to the risk, she said, were the facts the dogs were not spayed or neutered and were allowed to run loose. She said the Caulkins dogs “clearly had no training” and the owner readily admitted one was out of control. Hetts also said Caulkins had prior knowledge of her dogs’ aggression from reports her dogs barked and snapped at a teenage cyclist and growled at other kids. She said one had nipped Caulkins’ sister, an incident the sister admitted had happened but said the dog hadn’t broken the skin and she might have been responsible.
“If an individual allowed intact males and females to run at large in a pack, is that a good dog owner?” Healy asked.
“Absolutely not,” Hetts said. Asked what triggered the attack, she said “It could have been as innocent as one of the dogs grabbing hold of her clothes and the girl pushing at them, starting out as play that turned very quickly to prey behavior.”
King asked Hetts where she got the impression the family got the dogs for protection. Hetts said it one of the police reports said they got pit bulls after an uncle got out of prison. King said the Caulkins had owned pit bulls for almost 20 years and asked if it would change Hetts’ opinion if it wasn’t true they got them for protection. Hetts said it wouldn’t.
The judge said he understood one possibility of the attack was that one of the kids near the dog had screamed, causing Annilee to run and the dogs to attack her.
Hetts said it depended on where the children and the dogs were located but said the scream didn’t have much to do with it, a dog would chase someone if they ran away.
Three Show Low police officers described contacts, including the day of the fatal attack, with the Caulkins about their dogs. One officer said Caulkins was cited Nov. 21 for letting her dogs run unsupervised. She was fined Dec. 6 and that day called to request one dog be put down. She was referred to the Humane Society which handles such matters, court was told.
After all the witnesses had spoken, Annilee’s parents gave victim statements.
“This was something I wouldn’t want anyone to experience in life,” said Troy McKinnon, who held his daughter in his arms after the attack. “She loved her home and she loved to do everything. She was the greatest little girl possible. I will never see her graduate and there are more and more things I realize she will never be able to enjoy. She will never get to grow up and have fun with my other children. The image of her will be in my mind for a long time. My daughter was wonderful and I know we will be together again.”
Annilee McKinnon was visiting her parents in Show Low when she was killed. She had spent much of her life in the custody of a family in Apache County.
Fighting back tears, Dawn McKinnon said, “I wanted to say I will never see her again. Our whole family has split up. Those dogs weren’t properly cared for. They were always running around. They should have been taken care of. I don’t understand it.”
Summarizing the state’s case, Healy said several factors were involved, the first being owners having responsibility for their dogs. A second factor was allowing intact dogs to run loose in the neighborhood. A third was the dogs packing up, making them more aggressive. The fourth was the lack of training.
“What strikes me is that in the police report, Janice said she couldn’t think of anything she would change,” Healy said. “She still poses a danger to the community if she has large dogs and lets them run loose, she will continue to be a danger.”
When she concluded she had a problem, he said, she didn’t put up a fence, she didn’t find a better owner, she didn’t train the dogs and when the police didn’t come to take the dog, she continued to let it run rather than taking it to the Humane Society.
“Because of that Annilee is dead,” he said. “I think a prison term is called for.”
King said her initial response was that having a dog run around a neighborhood, it’s no prelude of attacking someone. The term aggressive for sporting dogs, she said, meant they were obstinate, not biting and charging.
“Where was the warning these dogs would attack?” she asked. “A criminal sentence shouldn’t reflect the outrage of the community. If she was there and didn’t control her dog, it would be different. She had a dog at large. A lot of dogs run loose.
“How could she have known? Where were the warning signs that make her so responsible that she should go to prison. She has been in jail for eight months.”
She suggested the judge could rule that Caulkins have no dogs.
“These were house dogs,” King said. “She loved them. It was incredible to her to believe her dogs could do what they did. It’s sad that Annilee is dead but the sentence should match her degree of guilt. There were no warning signs.
“The dogs were spoiled but they never bit anyone. They were family dogs. It’s an unfair standard. What happened totally shocked her. She still can’t believe it. I argue for a long probation with a ban on owning dogs.”
Given a chance to speak, Caulkins said, “I wouldn’t have intentionally harmed any child. I never assumed they would attack a little girl. If I knew they would do that, I would have put them down. I watched them play with kids for hours.
“My family is falling apart, too. It’s been torn apart, too. My heart goes out to the McKinnons. I’m sorry it happened and I pray for her (Annilee) every day.”
“It’s hard to know where to begin with this case,” Wing said. “I’ve been studying it since Friday. Certainly the prevailing concern is the sentence. It won’t be imposed to even the score between happened to Annilee McKinnon and what happened to Janice Caulkins and her family. The difficulty I have with this case is the plea agreement with the range of sentences.”
If the case went to a jury, he said, they might have brought in a verdict of negligent homicide which, if an aggravated sentence, would mean 3.75 years in prison which would be less than the minimum sentence of 4 years for manslaughter.
“It’s not right for a judge to play jury and I don’t do that,” he said. “I considered the seriousness of the charge and the reasons for a sentence.”
These include insuring public safety; inexcusable conduct; deterring that person or others from similar incidents; and whether it’s a just and deserved sentence for conduct threatening public safety.
Wing said he only found one mitigating factor, the remorse Caulkins has for the consequences of her conduct. As for aggravators, Wing said a very serious aggravator was the emotional harm, especially to Annilee.
“Most of us have a fear of dog bites,” he said. “It strikes fear in us. I wouldn’t want to measure what it was like for her when the dogs attacked.”
Aggravators included the emotional harm to her parents and siblings.
“What could be worse for a parent than to be in a situation like that,” he said.
Pronouncing the sentence, he said, “Because of my concern that a jury would decide negligent homicide rather than manslaughter, I will take the cautious approach.”
Caulkins, he said, should have taken reasonable care but let the dogs run loose. He said he couldn’t impose probation because it wouldn’t be just under anything in the statute governing sentencing.
“You should have taken substantially more care than you took,” he said. “I believe what I read in the report that you got a pit bull for the protection of family, that you knew what they were like.”
Wing then sentenced Caulkins to five years, beginning that day, with credit for 249 days served in jail, and eight months community supervision after release. He said no further sentence will be imposed except for restitution after a hearing was held.
Dennis