Jury trial ends in split decision

A jury in Big Horn County last week found a Greybull man guilty of misdemeanor animal cruelty charges for using a shotgun to injure two bulls that wandered onto his property in the summer of 2022.
James A. Lafollette also faced two felony counts of property destruction in connection with the incident, but the jury returned not guilty findings on both.
The trial in Fifth Judicial District Court in Basin featured two full days of testimony which set the stage for closing arguments shortly before lunchtime Wednesday. Jurors deliberated for approximately four hours after that before emerging with their verdict.
According to court documents, the incident occurred July 8, 2022, on a property at 630 U.S. Highway 14 owned by Lafollette. To the east of it is a property owned by Daniel Doyle, and east of Doyle’s property is a property owned by Brent and Becky Sorensen. The two bulls that were shot in the incident belonged to Brent Sorensen, who was keeping them on the Doyle property under the terms of a lease.
Court documents indicate that Sorensen was alerted to his bulls being out by a 5:45 a.m. phone call from LaFollette’s wife.  While riding his four-wheeler over to the collect them, Sorensen encountered LaFollette and observed that he was armed with a shotgun.
The investigating officer said Sorensen told him the bulls were headed away from LaFollette’s property when LaFollette fired a shot into the midsection of one bull, identified as C-6, and another two shots into the second bull, identified as G-14. Describing LaFollette as “angry and armed,” Sorensen gathered his bulls and remove himself from the situation.  He then called a local vet, Dr. Kristen Lindsey, to provide treatment.  The bull identified as G-14 died within three days.
According to the charging document, LaFollette voiced frustration in his interview with the deputy, saying he’d been dealing with the bulls for several years. He admitted shooting the bulls and told the deputy he’d contact Sorensen to make amends.
Marcia Bean, the Big Horn County attorney, and Tish Abromats, the attorney representing Mr. LaFollette, gave far different accounts of what transpired that day in their closing arguments.
Abromats argued that the bulls forced their way onto LaFollette’s property because the one they were on was overgrazed, suggesting that 25 to 30 acres was insufficient for a herd of approximately 22 bucking bulls.
She added that her client did everything he could to meet Wyoming’s “fence-out” requirement. There were two fence lines between the Sorensen’s bulls and their livestock, which they kept on 8 acres on the far side of the property.  The LaFollettes did not want the bulls breeding their cows.  
Regarding the shooting, Abromats said her client only used his shotgun because he feared for his safety, the safety of his wife and the safety of the livestock on their property, which included a bull valued at $25,000 that they were watching for a relative.  
Abromats argued that LaFollette, who had loaded #8 birdshot into his gun, never intended to hit the bulls; he was simply trying to shoot over them.
Bean challenged the self-defense argument, pointing out that LaFollette made no mention of fearing for his safety in his initial interview with law enforcement.  “He easily could have told (the deputy), had it happened ... but never said a word the entire time until Monday morning at 9 a.m.”
She reminded the jury of the testimony of Lindsey, who said the bulls had birdshot down their side, in the belly and shoulder areas.  “That doesn’t happen when you’re shooting over their head,” Bean said. “These cows weren’t jumping over the moon; they were jumping over the fence.  It happens when you aim and shoot, that’s when it happens.
She added, “I’m not suggesting he should have Mr. Sorensen’s bulls on his property, but what I am saying is, if it’s such a problem, he had an obligation to fence them out.  No attempt was made.  Mr. LaFollette said I’m not doing any of it.  Well, you’re not required to, but if you don’t do it, you can can’t shoot and injure another person’s property. If you don’t like it, fix it.  That’s what we didn’t do. That’s what he told (the sheriff’s deputy): I don’t like it, it’s not fair, I know I’m supposed to, but I’m not going to.”
Counts one and two alleged knowingly injuring the property of another without the consent of the owner and resulting in the destruction of property valued at $1,000 or more, with count one being tied to the bull identified as C-6 and count two to the bull identified as G-14.
The jury returned not guilty verdict on both.
On count three, a misdemeanor charge of cruelty to animals in the shooting of the bull identified as C-6, and count four, a misdemeanor charge of cruelty to animals in the shooting of the bull identified as G-14, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.
Bean said, “The jury’s decision clearly found that they did not find Mr. Lafollette’s claim that he shot the bulls in self-defense credible, and that his actions unnecessarily injured Mr. Sorenson’s animals.”
Each of the misdemeanor charges carries a maximum penalty of up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $750.
The court did not proceed to sentencing at the conclusion of the trail because there is an outstanding issue of restitution.  “We always ensure that the victim has the opportunity to address the court,” she said, adding that the Sorensens were not present when the jury came back with its verdict.