Supreme Court hears deer-carcass case

By Marc Kovac | February 26, 2015 at 12:00a.m.

COLUMBUS

It’s a case that involves a killing, DNA evidence, big money and private property.

And it drew questions from the state’s high court Wednesday about the value of a deer carcass and the location of its innards.

The Ohio Supreme Court must decide whether a Huron County man should have to pay nearly $28,000 to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for hunting on private property without permission.

According to documents, the case focuses on the death of a “hunting-lore sized deer” that “lived primarily on private commercial property that had a ‘zero tolerance’ for trespassers. That, of course, was part of the reason it had grown to mythic size.”

Documents indicate the deer likely was 5 or 6 years old and would “rank as one of the biggest deer harvested in Ohio.”

Legal counsel for Arlie Risner told justices his client was lawfully hunting when he shot the deer with an arrow and it crossed onto private property and died.

“The killing of the deer and the death of the deer is not the crime,” attorney Gordon Eyster said. “The crime is going and retrieving the dead deer.”

But Michael Hendershot, legal counsel for ODNR, said investigators found a tree stand, deer entrails and corn on the private property in question. According to documents, they took DNA samples from the organs and later compared them with a deer being processed at a local meat shop and taxidermist. They also seized a 20-point antler rack that Risner had left for processing.

Risner pleaded no contest to a related charge and was fined $200 and ordered to pay $90 in restitution and $55 in court costs. His hunter’s license was suspended, pending payment of nearly $28,000 in additional restitution for the deer.

Hendershot said the dollar amount covered the value of the antlers and carcass and the animal’s value to the state.

But Risner challenged the additional payment, saying ODNR already had taken possession of the deer carcass.

“Once they received possession of what they lost, they can’t seek additional remedies,” Eyster said.