Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Cruelty Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court receives video and investigator testimony in high‑profile animal‑cruelty case; sentencing continued
Summary
In a hearing before Judge Stephanie Boyd, the state presented video evidence and testimony in the case against Dejanae Miller Havana accusing her of repeatedly striking a small dog. The court admitted exhibits and continued sentencing so the judge can review reports and the record before imposing sanction.
A hearing in the 187th District Court focused on video evidence and witness testimony alleging the repeated striking of a small dog. Judge Stephanie Boyd received testimony from the city’s animal‑cruelty investigator and the responding officer, reviewed video and stipulated exhibits presented by the state, and continued sentencing to allow the court to review the record and any pre‑sentence materials.
Kateri Miller, identified in court as an animal‑cruelty investigator, told the court she reviewed a roughly 45‑second video in which a woman struck a small dog multiple times with a leash‑like object. Miller testified that in her professional opinion the animal was struck repeatedly — she counted strikes she described as 17 in the clip — and that the conduct appeared excessive and constituted torture under the non‑livestock cruelty standard the investigator applied. She also said that when officers removed the animal it weighed under three pounds and showed vocalizations in the video consistent with pain.
The state introduced body‑camera or patrol footage from a transporting officer (admitted as the state’s exhibit) and a witness who described her online efforts to raise money to remove the dog from the defendant’s custody. The defense did not dispute the existence of the video on the record but asked the court for leniency, presenting the defendant’s driver‑ and school‑status and describing the defendant’s stated grief and sleep deprivation in the period before the incident.
During cross‑examination the defense questioned whether every strike seen on the video made contact with the dog and highlighted that the animal was found inside a clean room and was responsive when officers arrived. The investigator acknowledged some portions of the view were obstructed on the camera by a pop‑up crate and that the medical examiner or veterinarian recorded no outward physical injury on initial exam, though the investigator testified the dog’s vocalizations and the recorded strikes supported her conclusion that the conduct was excessive.
The court admitted the state’s exhibits and witnesses and set sentencing for the afternoon calendar to allow time for the judge to review reports and make a considered determination of sanction. The state indicated it had witnesses prepared and offered the video and medical notes as evidence in aggravation; the defense emphasized that the defendant has employment and is enrolled in classes and urged alternatives to incarceration.
Why this matters: the hearing combined digital evidence (a widely‑circulated video) and investigator expertise to present the factual record to the court. The judge’s decision following review of the admitted exhibits will determine whether the defendant receives a jail sanction, probation or another disposition.
What to watch next: the court’s ruling at the resumed sentencing hearing and any written order reflecting the sentence and conditions ordered by the court.
