YOUNGSTOWN Animal cruelty verdict upheld

An appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court could be the next step in the 1999 case.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- The 7th District Court of Appeals has upheld a Marmion Avenue man's 1999 conviction for beating a dog to death with a pipe.
Gerald Waterbeck was found guilty of animal cruelty in Youngstown Municipal Court in June 1999. Authorities said he used a pipe with a weight on the end to bludgeon a stray dog that was in his yard.
Waterbeck said he was protecting his own dog, a poodle, which was being attacked by the larger animal, a young German shepherd. He testified during his trial that he had called the Mahoning County Dog Warden's office three times before the day he beat the dog, but nothing was done.
Another of Waterbeck's poodles had been attacked and killed by another stray dog in 1998.
Feels justified: "He is of the opinion that what he did was justified," said Waterbeck's attorney, Louis DeFabio. "He was put in a real quandary as to what to do."
DeFabio had not seen the appellate court's ruling so could not comment on it. He said he will confer with Waterbeck before deciding whether to ask the Ohio Supreme Court to accept the case.
In his appeal, Waterbeck said the trial court verdict should be reversed because there hadn't been enough evidence presented to convict him.
Waterbeck said he hit the dog once in the head because it was menacing him. When he realized how badly he had hurt it, he hit the dog again to put it out of its misery.
But in writing the appellate court's opinion, Judge Mary DeGenaro said Waterbeck should not have hit the dog again.
"The reasonable course of action would have been to help the injured animal rather than beating it to death," she wrote. "Waterbeck may have believed the dog was a danger to either himself or his dog. This does not mean he needed to beat the dog to death with a pipe."
Judges Joseph Vukovich and Cheryl Waite also signed the opinion.
Was a danger: Waterbeck also argued in his appeal that under Ohio law, he should not have been charged with animal cruelty because the dog he killed was a danger to him.
Judge DeGenaro ruled that Waterbeck may have been able to use that defense if all he had done was hit the dog until it was no longer a threat. By his own admission, Waterbeck continued beating the dog until it was unconscious.
"An unconscious dog cannot menace," the opinion says.
The appellate court also denied Waterbeck's claim that Judge Robert Douglas used a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt in deciding the municipal court case.
DeFabio said Waterbeck has already completed his one-year probation and has sought counseling for anger management, both of which were part of his sentence.
bjackson@vindy.com