FARMINGTON – Ownership of approximately a dozen animals switched from a New Sharon woman to the state Friday afternoon, with the judge granting a motion for forfeiture filed by the District Attorney’s Office after the defendant failed to attend the hearing.
The defendant, Carol Murphy, 70, has a history of filing federal lawsuits naming law enforcement, judicial and state officials as defendants and attempting to argue that the “Corporation State of Maine” is incapable of prosecuting “Carol Murphy, one of the people of 1820.” On Oct. 28, she filed a document with the “Village of Franklin County” requesting that the state cease attempting to contact her.
Murphy did not attend Friday’s hearing and Active-Retired Justice Robert Clifford granted Assistant District Attorney Joshua Robbins’ motion for forfeiture. That turns the ownership of dogs, cats, rabbits, chinchillas and a pot-bellied pig seized from Murphy’s property on Oct. 1 over to the state. Murphy had filed a document on Oct. 24, claiming that Franklin County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over the case, which the court took as a motion to dismiss; that motion was denied by Clifford.
Personnel with the state’s Animal Welfare Department, Maine State Police and other law enforcement agencies entered Murphy’s home with a search warrant on Oct. 1 and removed the animals. With the court granting the motion for forfeiture, those animals can now be put up for adoption.
Following Friday’s hearing, Robbins said that his office would be seeking “significant” jail time through a plenary contempt proceeding. That matter will go before the court in December.
“We’re looking at a case where two Maine judges have issued orders that [Murphy] is not to possess animals,” Robbins said, noting it was at least the second time Murphy had disobeyed that order. “She has knowingly and willfully possessed animals.”
The state’s interactions with Murphy go back a decade or so, when she was first banned from possessing animals for the rest of her life after she was convicted of animal cruelty when more than 50 animals suffering from severe neglect were discovered at her house at 248 Lane Road in New Sharon.
In 2010, she was again convicted of animal cruelty charges after the state seized more than 40 animals found in varying degrees of poor health at her home. She was also convicted of felony assault on an officer, refusing to submit to arrest or detention, criminal use of an electronic weapon, after Murphy used a stungun on a State Police trooper attempting to serve a warrant in 2009 for unpaid court fines.
Murphy was sentenced to four years in prison, issued another order forbidding the possession of animals for the rest of her life and was held in contempt of court for statements she made during the jury trial.
While the state’s next action would be a contempt proceeding, Robbins said, it would be a plenary proceeding rather than an attempt to hold Murphy in summary contempt. Unlike a finding of summary contempt, which typically relates to in-courtroom conduct and carries a 30-day jail sentence cap, finding a defendant to be in plenary contempt results in a sentence which is “proportional to the conduct.”
Under state law, Robbins said, Murphy would receive the same judiciary safeguards as a Class D misdemeanor criminal proceeding, including the right to a jury trial. The conference for that plenary contempt proceeding has been scheduled for Dec. 22.
This woman is 70 years old. She has a ‘history’ of disobeying court orders. Has anyone thought she might have an illiness that has her behavior as it is? I am NOT saying she should have any animals in her care…she obviously cannot care for them properly. My guess is she has, maybe, a ‘hording’ disorder?
Has any judge, or attorney, ordered a mental evaluation?
I guess all I am saying is, maybe she needs medical help instead of jail time?
BUT…she should NOT have any animals in her care…i agree with that completly..
Good point Susie. Seems like we have enough research and information about the causes of “animal hoarding” neglect and abuse to know it has a mental health root. Someone should petition the court for a mental status eval.
She refused a psychological evaluation even though it was ordered
I am wondering how this women can refuse a mental evaluation if it was ordered for her to do so?
If, for whatever reason, the consequences of defying authority mean little to someone, as they do in this case, there is little wonder that she would defy a court order, refuse to answer an evaluator’s questions or not show up for appointments, etc. Even the most benevolent society cannot help those who will not accept that help. This case has a long history and she has for years refused, sometimes violently, to acknowledge that anyone except she herself has any influence over her actions. Many have tried to help her and all have failed. The court’s authority to, through due process, isolate her and render her physically incapable of abusing animals for at least a short period of time is, sadly, the only thing left.
If you research her case it is stated she refused the psychology evaluation, they did a 72 hour observation in a locked room, I am her neighbor and have been working on getting her help, an unfortunately it’s another case of mental health falling thru the cracks, and she has a long history way before she moved here, you have a right to refuse a psychology evaluation, most take them seeking the insanity plea.
Couldn’t mental health help be forced upon her if she was an eminent danger to another or herself? I would think the stun gun incident would have been sufficient to call her an eminent danger to another in addition to her living conditions. Could anyone explain if this is true and how law enforcement or the court could force mental health assistance?
I am sure if you looked at the history of this woman and the State of Maine, there is a possibility you would find that many attempts were made to get to the root of the problem. Despite being court ordered to be mentally evaluated, you still can’t make someone do it. It’s just like the analogy “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink” so even with a psychiatrist or psychologist sitting in front of her, you still can’t make her talk. But I think we all agree that something needs to be done in order to protect these animals from her cruelty, I honestly wonder if she kept that stun gun for Police Officers, Game Wardens, and Animal Control, or if she really kept it for the animals for when they were disobedient?…….One can only speculate
All Americans have rights and can not be forced to conform. This is one of the reasons that we have so many disturbed people in our midst. We have not found a way to balance our Constitution with the reality of mental illness, one of the saddest of human conditions.
You can “force” someone all you want to by court orders and by legally making them attend evaluations and what not, but it truly is up to the individual to engage in the services, and to work on their issues. You cannot make someone want to be better. “Disturbed people” hold office in our government, work in our school systems and live next door to each and every one of us, perhaps acceptance of their differences and supporting instead of shunning would be more productive. This woman is 70, she obviously loves animals, but perhaps doesn’t have the skill set to realize what is best for them, have her volunteer at a local shelter for several hours a week, she can get the interaction with the animals and be helpful at the same time. Sitting in a jail cell isn’t going to do anything but cost taxpayers money.