(a) Any person who overdrives, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, deprives of necessary sustenance, mutilates or cruelly beats or kills or unjustifiably injures any animal, or who, having impounded or confined any animal, fails to give such animal proper care or neglects to cage or restrain any such animal from doing injury to itself or to another animal or fails to supply any such animal with wholesome air, food and water, or unjustifiably administers any poisonous or noxious drug or substance to any domestic animal or unjustifiably exposes any such drug or substance, with intent that the same shall be taken by an animal, or causes it to be done, or, having charge or custody of any animal, inflicts cruelty upon it or fails to provide it with proper food, drink or protection from the weather or abandons it or carries it or causes it to be carried in a cruel manner, or fights with or baits, harasses or worries any animal for the purpose of making it perform for amusement, diversion or exhibition, shall, for a first offense, be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both, and for each subsequent offense, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(b) Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal shall, (1) for a first offense, be guilty of a class D felony, and (2) for any subsequent offense, be guilty of a class C felony. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any licensed veterinarian while following accepted standards of practice of the profession or to any person while following approved methods of slaughter under section 22-272a, while performing medical research as an employee of, student in or person associated with any hospital, educational institution or laboratory, while following generally accepted agricultural practices or while lawfully engaged in the taking of wildlife.

(c) Any person who knowingly (1) owns, possesses, keeps or trains an animal engaged in an exhibition of fighting for amusement or gain, (2) possesses, keeps or trains an animal with the intent that it be engaged in an exhibition of fighting for amusement or gain, (3) permits an act described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection to take place on premises under his control, (4) acts as judge or spectator at an exhibition of animal fighting for amusement or gain, or (5) bets or wagers on the outcome of an exhibition of animal fighting for amusement or gain, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(d) Any person who intentionally injures any animal while such animal is in the performance of its duties under the supervision of a peace officer, as defined in section 53a-3, or intentionally injures a dog that is a member of a volunteer canine search and rescue team, as defined in section 5-249, while such dog is in the performance of its duties under the supervision of the active individual member of such team, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(e) Any person who intentionally kills any animal while such animal is in the performance of its duties under the supervision of a peace officer, as defined in section 53a-3, or intentionally kills a dog that is a member of a volunteer canine search and rescue team, as defined in section 5-249, while such dog is in the performance of its duties under the supervision of the active individual member of such team, shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(1949 Rev., S. 8571; 1971, P.A. 99; P.A. 84-181; P.A. 89-121; P.A. 90-325, S. 30, 32; P.A. 91-35, S. 3, 5; P.A. 93-36; P.A. 96-243, S. 8, 16; P.A. 04-241, S. 4; P.A. 12-86, S. 1; P.A. 13-258, S. 114; P.A. 16-96, S. 1.)

History: 1971 act deleted references to “unnecessary” cruelty or neglect to provide proper care and to “cruelly” abandoning animal; P.A. 84-181 increased the maximum fine from $250 to $750; P.A. 89-121 increased the maximum fine from $750 to $1,000; P.A. 90-325 excepted baiting, harassing or worrying any animal in connection with cow-chip bingo from the penalty provisions; P.A. 91-35 deleted exception for baiting, harassing or worrying any animal in connection with cow-chip bingo established by P.A. 90-325; P.A. 93-36 added Subsec. (b) re penalty for intentional killing of a police animal; P.A. 96-243 relettered former Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (d), inserting new Subsec. (b) re malicious and intentional acts re animals and Subsec. (c) re fighting animals exhibited for amusement or gain, effective June 6, 1996; P.A. 04-241 added new Subsec. (d) re penalty for any person who intentionally injures any animal while such animal is performing duties under supervision of a peace officer or intentionally injures a dog in a volunteer canine search and rescue team while such dog is performing duties under supervision of the active individual member of such team, redesignated existing Subsec. (d) as Subsec. (e) and amended same by doubling penalty for intentional killing of a police animal and providing that any person who intentionally kills a dog in a canine search and rescue team while such dog is performing duties under supervision of the active individual member of such team shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both; P.A. 12-86 amended Subsec. (a) to designate existing penalty as penalty for first offense and add penalty for subsequent offense of a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years or both; P.A. 13-258 changed penalties in Subsecs. (a) to (d) from fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years to a class D felony and made a technical change in Subsec. (e); P.A. 16-96 amended Subsec. (b) to add “, (1) for a first offense,” re class D felony and to add Subdiv. (2) re subsequent offense a class C felony.

See Sec. 29-108a for definition of “animal”.

See Sec. 54-86n re appointment of advocate in proceeding regarding the welfare or custody of a cat or dog.

Cruelty to animals in overworking, neglecting, etc., may be alleged as a continuous offense. 54 C. 2. Information and charge under allegation of neglecting horses. 75 C. 268. It was error for the court to instruct the jury that defendant owner of animals cruelly treated by a bailee was chargeable with strict liability under section. 167 C. 434. Subsec. (a): “[U]njustifiably injures any animal” clause is plain and unambiguous and requires only a general intent when read in the context of the entirety of the subsection and within the section as a whole, and state was not required to prove that defendant possessed the specific intent to injure plaintiff's cat. 328 C. 21. Subsec. (a): The phrase “unjustifiably injures” is not unconstitutionally vague on its face as applied to defendant because defendant's conduct of shooting neighbor's cat with a BB gun because such cat was simply trespassing on defendant's property came within the unmistakable core of prohibited conduct under Subsec. Id.

Cited. 17 CA 326; 36 CA 364. Subsec. (c)(4) does not infringe on defendant's rights of freedom of association or assembly, nor does it violate defendant's right to equal protection; Subsec. (c)(4) need only bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state objective, and suppression of animal cruelty is a legitimate state objective. 131 CA 388. Subsec. (a) not unconstitutionally vague because person of ordinary intelligence would know that keeping smaller breed dogs in uninsulated space with interior temperature of 30 degrees would constitute failure to provide proper protection from weather. 153 CA 449. Subsec. (a) not unconstitutionally vague as applied to facts of case; person of ordinary intelligence would know that conduct causing dogs to be kept in conditions in which they exhibited initial signs of hypothermia is proscribed by statute. 160 CA 734. Section was intended to protect abused or neglected animals and to criminalize misconduct by their caretakers; plaintiff town and animal control officer are not abused animals or perpetrators of criminal conduct and therefore fell outside any class protected by section and they could not rely on section as a basis for maintaining a negligence per se action against defendant. 182 CA 55. Subsec. (a): Applies when a person who has responsibility to care for an animal or who limits an animal's ability to roam by keeping it in a set location fails to provide adequate care for that animal. Id., 237. Subsec. (a): The term “any animal” attaches separate criminal liability for each mistreated animal and defendant's nineteen separate charges for the cruel treatment of nineteen different goats did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Id.

The fact that defendant, a dog warden, was prosecuted for cruelly beating or unjustifiably injuring a dog, not for killing it, did not preclude him from claiming the benefit of Sec. 22-358. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 62. In determining whether defendant acted “cruelly”, the issue of justification should be carefully considered; it was not enough, for the guidance of the jury, for the court to define “cruelty” in its general sense; what is cruelty in one set of circumstances may not be cruelty in another. Id., 64.