Animal cruelty conviction upheld

Aug. 3—SALEM — The Appeals Court has upheld the conviction of a New York man on animal cruelty charges, finding that the judge who tried the case without a jury back in 2018 had a reasonable basis to conclude that Dominick Donovan was guilty in the deaths of two dogs and improperly cropping the ears of four others.

Donovan, who promoted himself as the creator of a new breed of guard dogs called "Donovan Pinschers," had come to the North Shore through a business association with Jason Gentry, a Salem man who ran a dog training kennel and wanted to breed and sell the dogs.

Gentry, who was also charged with animal cruelty, testified against Donovan under a deal with prosecutors that spared him from jail or having to give up two family pets. He fingered Donovan for the deaths of two puppies that were found in November 2015, in a bag at a Revere gas station.

Donovan's defense centered around the fact that when the dogs were found, there was no sign they'd been dead for the three weeks between Donovan's visit to Salem and the discovery of the dogs, such as odor, decomposition or insects.

"Although cast as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant's argument is that a rational trier of fact could not believe the accusations against him because they 'required an abandonment of common sense and scientific facts,' the Appeals Court panel said in its decision Monday. "We are not persuaded. At bottom, the defendant's claim is nothing more than a disagreement with the weight afforded to the evidence, and the assessment of witness credibility. These issues are wholly within the province of and the sole responsibility of the fact finder."

That fact finder was Superior Court Judge James Lang.

The Appeals Court said Lang was the only person in a position to assess the credibility of Gentry.

The court also rejected a newly-raised claim by Donovan's current lawyer that the attorney who represented him at trial was "ineffective" for failing to call a witness with veterinary records.

However, it's the first time the argument was raised, and the Appeals Court said that with no record or any affidavit from the trial attorney as to why he didn't call that witness, the justices did not feel they could take up the question.

Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, by email at jmanganis@salemnews.com or on Twitter at @SNJulieManganis.