The North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion Thursday in *State v. Ford*, modifying a lower court's decision to establish that felony animal cruelty charges require proof of actual knowledge rather than constructive knowledge of an animal's presence.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant Scott Everett Ford's motions to dismiss two felony charges: obstruction of justice and cruelty to animals. The case originated from judgments entered July 1, 2022, by Judge Alan Z. Thornburg in Buncombe County Superior Court.
Justice Riggs, writing for the court, addressed a key legal standard that had divided the Court of Appeals panel. The appeals court had applied a "should have known" standard when analyzing Ford's motion to dismiss the felony animal cruelty charge, but Ford argued this was incorrect and that actual knowledge should be required.
The Supreme Court agreed with Ford on this point, holding that North Carolina General Statute Section 14-360, which establishes the felony cruelty to animals offense, requires actual knowledge of an animal's presence. "To survive a motion to dismiss, the State must present evidence that supports a reasonable inference of the defendant's actual knowledge of the animal," the court wrote.
This clarification represents a modification of the Court of Appeals' decision rather than a complete reversal. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the appeals court's holdings that the trial court did not err in denying Ford's motions to dismiss.
The case had a complex procedural history. The Court of Appeals panel was divided on the obstruction charge, with Judge Carpenter writing a partial dissent arguing that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the felony obstruction of justice charge. The Supreme Court initially heard the case on February 11, 2025, after allowing Ford's petition for discretionary review of an additional issue on October 16, 2024.
The distinction between actual knowledge and constructive knowledge standards has significant implications for future animal cruelty prosecutions in North Carolina. Under the "should have known" standard, prosecutors could potentially secure convictions based on circumstances that would have alerted a reasonable person to an animal's presence. The actual knowledge requirement sets a higher bar, requiring evidence that the defendant was genuinely aware of the animal.
This heightened standard could affect how prosecutors approach felony animal cruelty cases. They will need to present evidence demonstrating the defendant's actual awareness of the animal's presence, rather than relying on circumstances that might have put the defendant on notice.
The opinion addresses both charges Ford faced but focuses primarily on clarifying the knowledge standard for animal cruelty. The obstruction of justice charge, which generated disagreement in the Court of Appeals, was ultimately sustained despite the dissenting judge's concerns.
Ford was represented by Andrew B. Banzhoff of Devereux & Banzhoff, PLLC. The state was represented by Attorney General Jeff Jackson's office, with Special Deputy Attorney General Brenda Menard handling the case.
The case demonstrates the Supreme Court's willingness to review and clarify statutory interpretation even when largely affirming lower court decisions. By modifying rather than reversing the Court of Appeals decision, the court provided needed clarity on the animal cruelty statute while maintaining most of the appeals court's analysis.
The actual knowledge standard now established for felony animal cruelty cases aligns with traditional criminal law principles that generally require proof of actual awareness rather than constructive notice for serious offenses. This modification ensures that felony animal cruelty convictions rest on evidence of genuine knowledge rather than circumstances that might have suggested an animal's presence.
The decision was filed December 12, 2025, concluding a case that began with trial court proceedings in 2022. The multi-year progression through the court system reflects the complexity of the legal issues involved and the importance of clarifying statutory standards for future prosecutions.
For defense attorneys handling animal cruelty cases, the decision provides clearer guidance on challenging charges where actual knowledge may be disputed. Prosecutors, meanwhile, will need to ensure their evidence clearly establishes the defendant's actual awareness of the animal's presence to satisfy the modified standard.
The Supreme Court's opinion in *State v. Ford* thus serves both to resolve the immediate case and to provide important precedential guidance for future felony animal cruelty prosecutions throughout North Carolina.