Defense questions need for cattle values in defacement case

Judge Matthew F.G. Castano has dismissed a motion that would have prevented the jury from hearing the fair market value of the 189 cows and six bulls that Patrick Carroll allegedly marked with bleach with the help of his son, Tucker.

Carroll is accused of using bleach to paint markings, including drawings of penises, to bring his neighbor’s attention to the problem of broken fences that weren’t being fixed quickly enough.

He faces a felony count of property destruction/defacement and a felony count of conspiracy to commit property destruction/defacement.

Attorney Seth Schumacher filed a motion arguing that evidence of the fair market value is “irrelevant” because the “proper measure of damages” should be how much it would have cost to restore that value by restoring the cattle to their previous state.

At a hearing on Thursday, he claimed that, to his knowledge, the state will be providing testimony on how much value the cattle lost after the defacement but is not planning to provide evidence of the cost to restore that value.

Judge Castano asked how the state would be expected to present its case without this information. The statute in question requires that the cost of restoring the property – or replacing it if the restoration cost is greater than the value – must be above $1000 in order for the act to be a felony.

“Doesn’t the state have to prove injury or damage before we even get to whether it’s a felony or not?” Castano asked.

The injury in this case is based on the loss of value, so how can this be achieved, he asked, without saying that the cattle were worth X before the act and Y after?

The judge laid out his understanding of the statute: someone injures property, and this crime is then determined to be a misdemeanor or a felony depending on how much injury has been done.

“Condition one is they have to show injury,” he said.

County Attorney Joe Baron, on behalf of the state, filed a response to this motion that said, “Limiting evidence of ‘value’ essentially dismisses the charges before trial”. The state would be prevented from presenting evidence required to prove an element of the crimes.

“The state is entitled to present relevant evidence of the value of the cattle before and after the defendant violated the law and bleached them,” he wrote.

“Without this evidence being presented to a jury, there will be no way for the jury to determine the element of the crime which requires the state to prove the ‘cost of restoring the injured property or the value of the property if destroyed was $1000 or more’.”

The jury needs to hear this evidence, he said, because it’s up to them to figure out the value, whether there was damage and the cost of restoration. To do this, they will need the before and after values.

Though Schumacher argued that the pre-defacement price is still not relevant, because the state can still present the cost of restoration, Judge Castano was not in agreement.

“Frankly, I think counsel is overly complicating this issue,” he said.

The fourth element of the crime, Castano said, is whether the defendant knowingly defaced or injured the property of another. This will require fair market value before versus after the act.

It’s going to be up to both counsels to explain to the jury whether $1000 is or is not the cost of restoration or replacement, he said, and it’s a legitimate use of fair market value to show that the bleach injured the value rather than enhance it, such as by turning them into “art cows”.

The motion was denied. At this time, the case is still scheduled to proceed to jury trial.