Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals panel weighs sufficiency of evidence in Bonilla animal‑cruelty case
Summary
Defense counsel argued the evidence did not prove Amanda Bonilla intentionally deprived her elderly dog of food, water or shelter, calling the case “about a dog on the last days of life.”
Attorney Megan Oreste, representing Amanda Bonilla, told the appeals panel the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Bonilla intentionally denied her dog food, water or shelter in violation of the statute. “This is a case about a dog on the last days of life,” Oreste said, and she asked the court to apply Russo and Erickson and the Lattimore sufficiency standard to reverse the convictions.
Oreste argued the dog was 15 years old, had stopped eating and drinking, and that witnesses’ observations were limited — for…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
