AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an incident where the Defendant's pit bull terrier approached a woman in a hostile manner while she was visiting a friend in the Defendant's neighborhood. This led to charges against the Defendant for violating Silver City ordinances related to the keeping of a vicious animal and the owner's responsibility for animal attacks.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the Silver City ordinances in question are not strict liability offenses and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for violating the ordinances.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments from the Plaintiff-Appellee, but it can be inferred that they argued for the Defendant's violation of the ordinances based on the incident involving the Defendant's dog.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Silver City ordinances prohibiting the keeping of a vicious animal and establishing the owner’s responsibility for animal attacks are strict liability offenses.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction under the Silver City ordinances.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order finding the Defendant in violation of Silver City ordinances.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Cynthia A. Fry authoring the memorandum opinion and Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, addressed the Defendant's arguments. The court clarified that the district court did not rule the ordinances as strict liability offenses, aligning with the Defendant's view that criminal intent is required for conviction due to the potential for imprisonment (para 3-4). The court found no basis in the record for the Defendant's assertion of error regarding strict liability. Additionally, the court rejected the Defendant's preemption argument as unpreserved and found no fundamental error in the proceedings (para 5). The court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction under both sections 6-194 and 6-195 of the Silver City ordinances, based on the dog's history of terrorizing behavior and the Defendant's awareness of such behavior (paras 6-11).