The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals has weighed in on a case involving a groom who was sanctioned by the Ohio State Racing Commission for kicking a horse. The court largely upheld the trial court’s decision, but with some adjustments, sending the case back to the Racing Commission for a new hearing. The central issue revolves around the definition of “cruelty to a horse” and the proper application of that definition in the case.
Background of the Case
The case began in 2023 when Brevin Lupton, a licensed groom, was caught on video kicking a horse at the Delaware County Fairgrounds. The horse had fallen while being trained with a jog cart. The judges at the Hollywood Gaming Dayton Raceway suspended Lupton’s license for a year and fined him $1,000, citing cruelty to the horse and conduct against the best interests of horse racing.
Lupton appealed this decision to the Racing Commission. He argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the incident didn’t occur during live racing. He also argued the Commission missed a deadline for scheduling the hearing. The Racing Commission, in turn, sought to block a subpoena issued by Lupton, requesting testimony from Michele Cardi of the Delaware County Humane Society, claiming her testimony was irrelevant.
The hearing officer denied Lupton’s motions and granted the Racing Commission’s motion to quash the subpoena. Following an administrative hearing, the hearing officer sided with the judges’ initial ruling, recommending the same suspension and fine. The Racing Commission then increased the fine to $5,000. Lupton appealed this decision to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the Racing Commission’s order, finding errors in the definition of “cruelty” and the quashing of the subpoena. The trial court ordered a new hearing, including the testimony of the subpoenaed witness. Both Lupton and the Racing Commission then appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Decision: Jurisdiction and Deadlines
The Court of Appeals addressed several key issues. First, Lupton argued that the Racing Commission’s jurisdiction should be limited to incidents occurring during live racing. The court disagreed, citing the Racing Commission’s broad authority to regulate horse racing and related activities, and found that Lupton’s actions, even if not during live racing, were still connected to horse racing and thus subject to the Commission’s rules.
Lupton also argued that the Racing Commission missed a 15-day deadline for scheduling the hearing, rendering its order invalid. The court dismissed this argument, citing precedent that the failure to meet the deadline did not remove the Racing Commission’s jurisdiction.
“Cruelty to a Horse”: The Central Issue
The heart of the appeal focused on the definition of “cruelty to a horse.” Lupton argued that the Racing Commission applied an undefined standard, violating due process. The court agreed, in part, noting that the hearing officer deferred to the racetrack judges’ assessment of the situation without providing a legal definition of the term. The court found that the Racing Commission should have applied the definition of “cruelty” as defined in Ohio Revised Code 1717.01(B). This definition includes “every act, omission, or neglect by which unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, permitted, or allowed to continue, when there is a reasonable remedy or relief.”
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in its instructions regarding the definition of cruelty by also including a dictionary definition of the word. The appellate court clarified that, on remand, the Racing Commission must apply the statutory definition to determine whether Lupton violated the rule.
Subpoena of Humane Society Employee
The Racing Commission also challenged the trial court’s decision to allow the testimony of Michele Cardi, the Humane Agent. The Court of Appeals found the hearing officer had abused his discretion in quashing the subpoena, finding Cardi’s testimony relevant due to her specialized knowledge of animal treatment and her review of the video of the incident.
Next Steps
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and reversed it in part, remanding the matter to the trial court for further remand to the Racing Commission. The Racing Commission will now conduct a new evidentiary hearing, applying the statutory definition of “cruelty to a horse” and allowing Cardi’s testimony. The court deemed other arguments by the Racing Commission moot, as the case was being remanded. The final outcome of the case will depend on the findings of the new hearing.