A Litigation Article used with permission from All-Creatures.org

The National Link Coalition shares recent work by attorney Yara Khalil who recommends that prior history of animal abuse be permissible as evidence of an individual's character in trials for subsequent violent crimes.

New Rules of Evidence Recommended for Defendants with Prior Histories of Animal Cruelty
From December 2025 LINK-Letter, The National Link Coalition
December 2025

Images from Canva

If an individual with a history of animal cruelty is charged with committing a violent act against a person, can a prosecutor offer evidence of that prior act to assert that the defendant has a violent character and therefore must have been violent at the time of the second crime?

That’s a question explored in depth by attorney Yara Khalil in the latest issue of the Michigan State University Law School’s Law Review. Khalil thoroughly reviews extensive case law, law journal articles and psychiatric studies in which violence and organized crime affiliation have a strong and predictable nexus with individuals who commit abusive acts against animals. But such Link evidence may or may not be admissible in a civil or criminal trial.

If an individual is charged with any sort of criminal or civil violent misdemeanor or felony, even including animal abuse, evidence that the individual has abused animals in the past is categorized as “propensity evidence” and typically is not admissible to prove the accused acted in accordance with that trait of violence, Khalil writes.

Khalil proposes that character evidence of a defendant’s propensity to commit animal abuse should typically be admissible against defendants in state and federal courts, in all criminal and civil cases involving allegations of acts of violence, whether between domestic parties or unrelated parties, through the enactment of a new Federal Rule of Evidence, as well as through new state statutes in all fifty states.

Federal Rules of Evidence

The Federal Rule of Evidence 404 generally prohibits attorneys from offering “propensity evidence” of an individual’s character to prove the individual “acted in accordance with that trait at a particular time” because the risk such evidence might unfairly prejudice a jury. However, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows the introduction of relevant “probative” evidence that has a proper evidentiary purpose and is not deemed to be prejudicial. Trial judges can discern between slightly probative and highly problematic evidence, as well as everything in between, Khalil explains. Meanwhile, there are circumstances in which propensity evidence is admissible to aid prosecutors and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

For example, prior acts of animal abuse may be introduced in cases of domestic violence, but not in other crimes, she writes. “This reality creates a large gap in the law that prohibits adults and children who are victims of violent crimes or torts from achieving justice through successful trials; allowing animal abuse propensity evidence concerning past violent acts committed by the defendant only in domestic violence cases makes it more difficult for prosecutors to prove other categories of violent crime, sometimes in situations where the result boils down to a contest of the defendant’s word against that of the victim’s.

Khalil concludes that not all crimes against humans and the inherent character in committing them warrant a liberal presumption of admissibility of animal cruelty histories in trial courts. “Just like sexual assault and child molestation, acts of animal abuse are extremely odious and unusual, and they are not committed by the average person in the United States population. Therefore, they can be highly probative of an individual’s character, especially when observed in relation to charged and future criminal or tortious conduct.

“In light of the strong link between other violent crimes and animal abuse that occur outside of domestic relationships, there is a compelling need for animal abuse propensity evidence to have a strong presumption of admissibility in all violent criminal and civil cases,” she adds.

“Evidence of this sort can be extremely helpful in securing justice for victims of abuse and assault, human and nonhuman, and lead to more comprehensive trial outcomes and subsequent justice.”

-- Khalil, Y. J. (2025). Animal abuse propensity evidence should have presumptive admissibility against defendants for violent acts. Animal & Natural Resource Law Review, 21, 51-72.

---

Posted on All-Creatures.org: December 11, 2025
Return to Litigation Articles