Table Of State Animal Sexual Assault Laws

Introduction

This table details state laws prohibiting sexual conduct between humans and animals. Almost all states (about 49) have some provision that criminalizes engaging in sexual conduct with animals. West Virginia does not have a law addressing this conduct.

States are somewhat split between categorizing first offenses misdemeanors or felonies (23 misdemeanor and 26 felony, which also depends on severity of conduct and injury to the animal in states like Nevada and Texas). One striking fact is the range of possible sentences under the laws. In Rhode Island, conviction results in imprisonment for not less than 7 years up to 20 years. Idaho gives a sentence of not less than 5 years in state prison. Georgia also has a mandatory minimum of one year in jail up with a maximum of up to five.

While almost half of states label the crime a misdemeanor, in some of those states, such as Kansas and Maine, the severity level jumps to a felony if the actor causes or coerces juveniles to engage in the activity or if the person has previous convictions of bestiality.

Notably, the legality of bestiality is not controlled from the federal level. The only relevant federal law is the sodomy law under the military code. This law provides that “[a]ny person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with . . . an animal is guilty of sodomy.” 10 U.S.C.A. § 925. The penalty is derived through court martial. As one might expect, the statute applies only to military personnel.

Importance of Naming and Placement of Laws

While many of these laws date to the last century or earlier, there have been many recent additions of bestiality laws, particularly as part of cruelty codes. In those few states that do not have bestiality laws on their books, there may be provisions in the child protection or obscenity laws that encompass bestiality. These laws may prohibit showing children depictions of such acts or coercing juveniles to perform such acts. The table below does not include these laws.

The evolving view of this criminal activity can also be seen by the criminal chapters under which these laws are placed. Historically, engaging in sexual activity with an animal was considered a crime against public morals or a "crime against nature" as in states like Michigan. The act of bestiality was often placed in statute that covered other sexual acts that were historically considered "unnatural" and "perverted" (Maryland), or "abominable" and "detestable" (Rhode Island). One state (South Carolina) still refers to the activity as "buggery." The majority of states label their laws dealing with this conduct "bestiality."

Recent enactments contain another provision that the older laws do not: a prohibition on the photographing or filming of sexual acts with animals. Alaska, for example, amended its laws in 2010 to include sexual conduct with an animal under its general cruelty provisions. The subsection criminalizes both knowingly engaging in sexual conduct with an animal as well as filming or photographing another person doing so (Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington have similar film prohibitions). The commercial gain involved in distributing such images online may fuel the continued sexual assault of animals.

States have moved from categorizing these acts as crimes against morality to viewing them as a form of animal cruelty. In fact, several states specifically include such acts under their animal cruelty codes. While designating this conduct as cruelty can be seen as a step toward greater animal welfare, California and Oregon have gone beyond this by calling the act "sexual assault of an animal." This change may reflect these states' assessment that animals are incapable of consenting to such acts. In some states, offenders may be subject to sexual assault registry laws.

Sexual Offender Registration for Bestiality

This issue of registering as a sex offender and "victimhood" came before the Michigan Court of Appeals. In 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an animal cannot be a "victim" for the purposes of sex offender registry. People v. Haynes, 281 Mich.App. 27, 760 N.W.2d 283 (Mich.App.,2008). In this case, the defendant pleaded no contest to committing an “abominable and detestable crime against nature” with a sheep under MCL 750.158. In addition to sentencing consistent with being habitual offender, the trial court found that defendant's actions evidenced sexual perversion, so the court ordered defendant to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (“SORA”). Defendant only appealed the propriety of the trial court's order requiring him to register as a sex offender. The Court of Appeals reversed the order, holding that while sheep was the “victim” of the crime, registration was only required if the victim was a human being less than 18 years old. The court found that MCL 750.158 encompasses two categories of crimes: “abominable and detestable crime[s] against nature” with a human being, and “abominable and detestable crime[s] against nature” with an animal. SORA defines “listed offense” as including a violation of section 158 if a victim is an individual less than 18 years of age. Relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of "victim," the court concluded that an animal was not intended to be considered a victim under the statute.

It appears that since 2008, two other states have grappled with whether animal sexual assault convictions mandate registration on state sexual offender registration lists. In State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 273 P.3d 701 (2012), the Kansas Supreme Court held that a person convicted of misdemeanor sodomy for engaging in sexual activity with an animal is not required to register under Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). In making this decision, the court carefully grappled with the language of the law and the legislative history. In contrast, a California appellate court upheld listing on the sex offender registry list due in large part to defendant's presentence investigation report and criminal history. People v. DeShields, No. C070131, 2015 WL 1183864, unpublished/noncitable (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2015), review denied (May 20, 2015). Critical to this ruling is that California law allows discretionary registration "even if the defendant was not convicted of a sexual offense" (at 6). In DeShields situation, the court upheld the trial court's finding by a preponderance of evidence "that defendant committed the animal cruelty as a result of sexual compulsion and/or for purposes of sexual gratification" (at 7). It should be noted that this case is listed as unpublished and noncitable.

One state deals with listing on the sexual offender registry in the text of its law. In 2017, Texas enacted a comprehensive bestiality law. In doing so, it also amended the criminal procedure code allowing bestiality to be a "reportable conviction or adjudication" for sexual offender registration program under Article 62.001(5), Code of Criminal Procedure.

Alternative Philosophical Views

Bestiality laws focus on what can be considered by society to be an immoral or taboo act. As such, many state laws mandate psychological counseling those convicted under such laws (Arizona and Washington among others). This is often required at the perpetrator's expense. More recent laws also mandate forfeiture of animals owned by the defendant and restrictions on future ownership. Nevada requires that the perpetrator reimburse the owner for the medical costs incurred by the assault if the animal is not owned by the perpetrator.

There have been very few legal challenges to the constitutionality or propriety of such laws. Scholars suggest that these laws may not be directed at the lack of consent on the part of the animal, but rather society’s attitude toward sex itself. Pets or Meat? Mary Ann Case, 80 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1129 (2005). Recent laws have modified that view by placing the laws under criminal animal cruelty codes. While the author in Pets or Meat focuses on the broader question of gender roles in society, she does raise the difficult issue of how to differentiate the act of bestiality from other “tricks” pets are forced to perform, sometimes through coercion. 80 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1129, 1149. In fact, famed animal rights philosopher Peter Singer wrote a controversial essay entitled, “Heavy Petting,” in which he suggests that “mutually satisfying activities” could occur without involving cruelty to the animal. (See http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm ). Singer insinuates that our discomfort with "zoophilia" stems more from our view as separate and morally superior from the rest of the animal world rather than the direct harm to the animal itself.

Regardless of the philosophical platform from which one views the activity, bestiality is criminal act in a majority of states. Even if a state does not specifically proscribe the activity, it may be covered under other aspects of a state’s sex crimes code (such as obscenity or child endangerment laws) or even a broader animal cruelty law if the animal is injured or killed.