By Holly Fesperman LeeSalisbury Post
The Cabarrus County District Attorney says her office handled a Kannapolis animal cruelty case properly and refuted comments by a local animal rights activist.
Cabarrus District Court Judge Martin McGee found Sylvester Conyers, 22, 2040 Pilpernail St., Charlotte, not guilty of animal cruelty Thursday
Conyers was charged with animal cruelty on Dec. 10 after Kannapolis Police officers found a puppy, since named Merry, with two broken legs and a broken pelvis at his home. Police also found injuries on the puppy that resembled burn marks.
A person called police to report Conyers had been beating the puppy because she wet the floor, according to Kannapolis Police.
Patsy Beeker, founder and president of Cabarrus CARES (Coalition for Animal Rescue Efforts and Services), said she and other volunteers attended court Thursday morning to watch Merry’s case. She said she talked with Assistant District Attorney Andrew Bowman during a morning break. She said Bowman told her the case would most likely be continued that day.
Beeker said it was difficult for her and her group to hear clearly in the courtroom, but they understood the case was continued before the lunch break. They asked a probation officer who was in court, and the officer said the case was continued. The officer suggested she call later for the new court date.
She found out Friday morning from other law enforcement officers that the case had been called later in the afternoon and McGee found Conyers not guilty. She also suggested that the district attorney’s office was not taking animal cruelty cases seriously.
Cabarrus County District Attorney Roxann Vaneekhoven said Tuesday her office takes all animal abuse cases very seriously.
“The article in the Salisbury Post and many of the statements made by Ms. Beeker are completely inaccurate,” she said.
Vaneekhoven said Bowman “is a very passionate prosecutor and probably leads the office in pursuing animal cruelty cases.”
The district attorney said it was ironic that Beeker was accusing Bowman of not making an effort to prosecute the animal abuse case because he actually has a special interest in the area.
Vaneekhoven said Bowman wrote an article on animal cruelty in the district attorney’s newsletter last year.
“According to Mr. Bowman, he shared with Ms. Beeker that this was the first time the case was on the calendar and it was possible it could be continued if Mr. Conyers asked for an attorney,” she said.
“At the morning break when Mr. Bowman talked with Ms. Beeker, he told her that she and any member of her group were welcome to stay,” Vaneekhoven said. “I take issue with the fact that she’s trying to insinuate that she was told to leave because the case was continued.”
Vaneekhoven emphasized that “at no time after that, did anyone from the District Attorney’s Office tell Ms. Beeker the case was being continued.”
Rather than talking to another courthouse official, Beeker should have talked to Bowman during the lunch break, Vaneekhoven said.
Vaneekhoven said she was disturbed about the inaccuracies of Beeker’s statements and, “I called her personally to sit down and discuss this case.”
Vaneekhoven said Beeker hasn’t returned any of her calls.
Beeker said Tuesday that she’s been out of town and had not been able to return Vaneekhoven’s calls.
She said she stood by her previous statements that the district attorney’s office didn’t make a good effort to prosecute the case.
But she said she looks forward to meeting with Vaneekhoven.
In explaining what happened Thursday, Vaneekhoven said standard procedure for the court is for judges to hear guilty pleas first before going to cases where defendants are pleading not guilty.
“When Mr. Conyers was brought out from the jail the first time, he indicated that he would represent himself and plead not guilty,” Vaneekhoven said.
At that time, bailiffs returned Conyers to the jail.
Conyers’ case was called again between 3 and 4 that afternoon, Vaneekhoven said.
“Mr. Bowman has shared with me that when he broke for lunch and when he came back at 2 p.m., he looked for Ms. Beeker and the others and didn’t see them there,” she said.
When the trial started, Vaneekhoven said, Bowman presented all the evidence that the police officer who charged Conyers brought to court.
“Essentially, the defendant said the dog had been hit by a car the day before. And our testimony showed that the police had gone out to Mr. Conyers’ residence to serve him with a warrant on an unrelated case when they saw the dog. Their testimony said they saw some blood coming from the corner of the dog’s mouth,” she said.
Vaneekhoven said the officers asked Conyers why he didn’t take the dog to the veterinarian and he said he couldn’t afford it.
During the trial, Bowman asked the officer if he saw any burns on the dog’s neck, according to Vaneekhoven.
She said the officer told the court he did see some marks on the dog’s neck that looked like they could have been from the dog’s leash or chain.
Vaneekhoven said the real issue arose when the officer testified a woman on the scene told him that Conyers beat the dog.
“And this woman did not come to court to testify. Therefore, we did not have any eye witness testimony,” Vaneekhoven said.
Because there wasn’t an eye witness, “the judge could not consider that statement (about the beating) because it’s hearsay,” she said.
Vaneekhoven explained the role of her office, saying a prosecutor doesn’t know who is at the scene or who is a witness unless police tell the prosecutor.
Vaneekhoven said her office normally issues a subpoena when police provide the name of a witness.
She said she wasn’t sure if a subpoena was issued in this case.
“Yes, it would have helped to have her there, but we can’t produce evidence that we don’t have,” Vaneekhoven said.
In the Post article, Beeker also questioned why Bowman did not call employees of the clinic that treated Merry, contending they could say injuries to Merry’s neck were not caused by a car. Vaneekhoven did not address that issue.
She said Bowman told her there were no photographs introduced in court. The officer gave him the pictures after the state already presented all the evidence. But Vaneekhoven said it really wouldn’t have made a difference because the pictures only showed the dog lying on the floor, not her injuries.
Vaneekhoven again disputed Beeker’s contention that the district attorney’s office puts a low priority on animal cruelty cases.
“Again, I take issue with Ms. Beeker’s statement. I would thoroughly look forward to sitting down and discussing this with her because we’ve worked with that agency in the past and look forward to working with them in the future. But I certainly don’t want false allegations lodged against any member of my staff. It’s inaccurate,” she said.
“Not only do we prosecute these cases we prosecute them vigorously. And on that day in court we presented every bit of evidence the police brought to us,” Vaneekhoven said.
Contact Holly Lee at 704-797-7683 or hlee@salisburypost.com.