/

Maine Supreme Court rules against New Sharon woman accused of illegally possessing animals

6 mins read
Carol Murphy

PORTLAND – The state’s highest court has announced that it has affirmed the December 2016 decision reached in the Franklin County Superior Court, convicting a New Sharon woman of contempt of court. That conviction relates to a life-long ban on the possession of animals, stemming from two animal cruelty convictions.

Carol Murphy, 72 of New Sharon, was convicted on a contempt of court charge on Nov. 16, 2016, following a daylong trial in Franklin County Superior Court in front of Justice William Stokes. After a jury convicted her following 30 minutes of deliberation, Stokes sentenced Murphy to 64 days in jail, the maximum allowed by law. Execution of the sentence was stayed at that time, pending her appeal to the Maine Supreme Court.

The court issued its ruling on Tuesday, indicating that “The evidence supporting the finding of contempt was uncontested at trial and is more than sufficient to support the contempt finding. The testimony provided unequivocal evidence that Murphy was, again, collecting a number of animals.”

The contempt charge stems from Murphy’s violation of two, lifetime bans on possessing animals that were handed down by Superior Court justices in 2004 and 2010, following her convictions for animal cruelty.

In 2014, neighbors alerted the district attorney’s office that Murphy was keeping animals at her home at 248 Lane Road. After securing a search warrant, the state’s Animal Welfare Department and law enforcement seized four dogs, five chinchillas, two rabbits, a pot-bellied pig and two cats from Murphy’s residence, according to testimony at the Nov. 16 trial. As the contempt charge was advancing through the court system, subsequent searches located cats and other animals during one visit and a dog that Murphy claimed was a service animal.

Following the filing of the state’s complaint in September 2014, the Maine Supreme Court indicated in its ruling, Murphy filed a “plethora” of papers that the court termed as “inscrutable dense,” “based on fanciful and jumbled legal theories,” and based on either admiralty law or the Uniform Commercial Code. “… [N]one of her theories has a basis in Maine law, applicable federal law, or constitutional concepts,” the court concluded.

Murphy’s argument was that the original seizure of her animals in 2004 had been unlawful, as no search warrant had been initially applied for. State officials had killed a $10,000 horse, she had claimed, cutting off its head and leaving the body behind. Those actions voided the state’s case, she said, and therefore there was no court order to be held in contempt for.

Murphy also claimed that Assistant District Attorney Joshua Robbins had never taken an oath of office and therefore couldn’t prosecute the case, that she was a “state citizen of the Republic of Maine” and that she couldn’t be tried by a military court. The state receives judicial permission to put Murphy’s seized animals up for adoption; those animals were evidence, Murphy said, and should have been retained.

In making his ruling, Stokes said that he believed Murphy’s view of her legal history was incorrect. State officials had acted lawfully in 2004, he said, responding to complaints from neighbors and failed attempts by the animal control officer to make contact with Murphy. A report about a recumbent horse, unable to stand under its own power and in respiratory distress, resulted in a consultation with a state vet who eventually authorized its euthanization. According to the transcripts, the head was removed for an autopsy because a dead skunk had been found nearby and some of the horse’s conditions were consistent with rabies.

The conditions the animals were living in back in 2004, Stokes said, citing the judge, were “horrid, shameful, disgusting and despicable.”

She had created a narrative in which she was the victim, Stokes said during sentencing. “Trust me, Ms. Murphy, I do not see you as a victim.”

In its decision, the Maine Supreme Court noted that Murphy had not contested the facts supporting Stokes’ finding, instead producing a “litany of frivolous and irrelevant challenges to the authority of all involved in her case.”

Specifically, the court said, the Franklin County Superior Court had jurisdiction, Robbins and Stokes’ appointments were not infirm, Murphy’s prior convictions were valid and “the record demonstrates no bias on the part of the judge.”

“To the contrary, the judge consistently treated Murphy with respect,” the law court said, “in stark contrast to her disruptive and contemptuous treatment of the judge. We do not discuss those challenges further.”

“Without question,” the ruling concluded, “Murphy received the fair trial to which the Constitution entitles her.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 Comments

  1. If this person is found with so much as a STUFFED animal she should be kept until the year 2100.

  2. David…. Don’t you think the proper thing to do now is for some agency to find some help for the woman. Obviously she needs it..

  3. Carol Murphy does not see what she has done wrong!! POOR ANIMALS….. She deserves punishment, not that I think it is going to help her understand the cruelty and suffering she inflicts on these animals!! I agree with CAT. To be continued……

  4. Unfortunately, this woman is of the mindset that what she has done is not wrong. Yes, she may need “help”, but our systems do not or are not able to supply that assistance. The best solution, albeit, costly, is to keep her incarcerated so that no animals can be in her possession. Not even a mouse!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.