Great Dane trial to resume Nov. 14, judge tosses motion to dismiss

OSSIPEE — Christina Fay's animal cruelty trial, in which the Wolfeboro woman is accused of mistreating dozens of Great Danes in her care, has been scheduled to resume in two weeks.

Meanwhile, Circuit Judge Charles Greenhalgh has denied her defense team's latest motions, one to dismiss the charges against her, and one to try to suppress a search warrant that allowed police to raid her home.

Fay is being represented by Kent Barker of Winer and Bennett LLP of Nashua and James P. Cowles of Walker & Varney PC of Wolfeboro.

The case began last June, when police and members of the Humane Society of the United States seized the dogs from locations in Wolfeboro and Bartlett. The Conway Area Humane Society received another nine prior to the seizure.

Fay, 59, of Wolfeboro faces a dozen charges alleging she kept dogs in squalid conditions and denied them adequate food, water and care.

The trial, overseen by Greenhalgh, began Oct. 16 and ran five days through Oct. 24.

The state has rested, and now the defense will be calling witnesses. Day six is scheduled for Nov. 14 in Ossipee circuit court, starting at 9:30 a.m.

Defense attorneys had argued that the case should be dismissed as a result of the state refusing to grant immunity to Fay's veterinarian Dr. Kate Battenfelder and vet tech Stephanie Macomber because their intimate knowledge of the dogs would be vital to Fay's case.

Greenhalgh disagreed.

"Battenfelder's records have been introduced as a full exhibit," Greenhalgh wrote in orders that the court released on Wednesday. "The Defendant's expert, Dr. (Samantha) Moffitt, has testified that based on her review of the records, the Defendant provided more than adequate veterinary care for the dogs. Given this evidence, it is unlikely that either Battenfelder or Maycomber (sic) would provide testimony that is more exculpatory than Moffitt's. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied."

The defense also sought to have each of the 12 charges against Fay dismissed. Greenhalgh has apparently yet to rule on those.

The defense also made a motion to suppress the search warrant based on the fact the police's warrant affidavit didn't mention that the HSUS would be participating. The attorneys argued that the HSUS' involvement was a "shock to the conscience" because, they said, its staffers took photos and videos and used the footage to try to raise money and defame Fay.

Greenhalgh said the law allows police to have assistants to help with the execution of a search warrant, and those assistants don't have to be named in the search warrant.

He added that it's a long-standing practice for police to display to the media items they have seized. He said if Fay feels defamed, she could address that by taking civil actions.

"Finally, this court finds that the assistance of HSUS did not unreasonably expand the scope of the search," said Greenhalgh in denying the motion to suppress the search warrant.

"The use of the HSUS was quite reasonable given the limitations of WPD (Wolfeboro Police Department). Not only did WPD have an obligation to gather evidence through the search, it was required to take the extra step of caring for the animals which it knew would be seized. Only an organization like HSUS could have provided this assistance."