Skip to main content

See also:

Jury clears one defendant, deadlocks on another in Wash. animal cruelty case

On Monday, Feb. 10, My Edmonds News reported that a jury cleared one defendant and deadlocked on another in a Washington state animal cruelty case.

Jury clears one defendant, deadlocks on another in Wash. animal cruelty case
Facebook / For Sadie's Sake
Jury clears one defendant, deadlocks on another in Wash. animal cruelty case
Courtesy of For Sadie's Sake / Facebook

The animal cruelty case, which involved video footage of dog fighting, spread like wildfire thanks to social media. The case involved two defendants: Rose Adams and her boyfriend, George Beutler.

An Edmonds Municipal Court jury found Adams guilty of maintaining more than the legal number of dogs at her residence, but deadlocked on two animal cruelty charges against her. The same jury cleared Beutler of animal cruelty.

The animal cruelty case, which involved months of hearings and continuances followed by a two-day trial, is the latest incident involving Adams and Beutler.

The dog fighting video, which was posted on May 12, 2013, went viral as animal advocates responded to the animal abuse that it depicted. The video showed a vicious dog attack which Beutler allegedly tried to break up.

After the video was turned over to the authorities, a search warrant was issued and Edmonds police served a warrant on the couple’s home on May 14.

Adams faced two animal cruelty counts and one count of keeping more than the legal limit of five domestic animals. She had an additional pending public disturbance case.

Beutler faced one count of animal cruelty and three unrelated counts of third degree driving on a suspended license.

Judge Fair stated that these charges carry maximum sentences of 90 days in jail and $1,000 in fines

Among the witnesses were Edmonds veterinarian Larry Remick, who treated two of the dogs, Sadie and Brownie, for injuries they sustained while in the care of Adams and Beutler. According to Remick,

Remick said that both dogs had bruising consistent with blunt trauma, such as being kicked or hit with a blunt instrument, and this indicated a "history of fighting and abuse."

Read more about this case here, here, here, and here.

Edmonds Animal Control Officers Debbie Dawson and Tabatha Shoemake also testified at the animal cruelty trial. Both officers were present when the warrant was served. They testified that one room had puddles of urine and feces. According to Officer Dawson, the waste appeared to have accumulated "over several days."

During the trial, Adams described herself as an animal rescuer who saved dogs from "high kill" shelters and placed them in homes.

“I have a great love for animals, not just dogs,” she stated. “I love them all.”

Adams outlined her skill in animal care and added: “[I cook] three times per week for the dogs, and bake home-made dog treats.”

Adams testified that on the night of the dog fight in question, she had focused on separating the dogs. She stated that if she hadn't broken up the fight that the dogs “would have killed each other - it’s what pit bulls do.”

Pit bull owners and advocates would disagree with the experienced animal rescuer's assessment of pit bulls.

Adams testified that only five of the dogs at her home were registered to her. The remaining nine dogs were rescues - and four that had been "placed under her care for the weekend while their owner was out of town."

Beutler, who testified that he does not share Adams' passion for dog rescue despite living with her, stated that he is "scared of pit bulls." He testified that the video depicted him trying to separate the fighting dogs.

A six-person municipal court jury heard instructions and closing statements before considering the evidence and rendering a verdict, where they deliberated for two hours.

The jury told Judge Fair that they were irretrievably deadlocked on the two animal abuse charges against Adams.

The RCW for first degree animal cruelty is RCW 16.52.205:

(1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized in law, he or she intentionally
(a) inflicts substantial pain on,
(b) causes physical injury to, or
(c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal.

(2) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized by law, he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal and as a result causes:
(a) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or
(b) death.

"Like" this column to help share it with others!

If you would like to continue to receive important information, features, and news related to pets in Seattle and beyond, please click the "Subscribe" icon located at the top of this column. It's free, convenient, and anonymous!

You can also find Seattle Pets on Facebook!