Jury Acquits DWP Meter Reader of Cruelty in Killing Family’s Dog

Meter reader Eric B. DeGruy was found not guilty Wednesday of cruelty to an animal in the death of a dog he killed with a meter-reading tool last year.

DeGruy, 27, was charged with malicious cruelty to the dog, Brandy, a beagle mix, after he threw a metal pry bar that pierced the dog’s skull as she ran at him across her owner’s front yard in Sunland.

The San Fernando Municipal Court jury reached its decision after a little more than three hours of deliberation.

“I am happy to a certain extent, but it was a very scary experience that I just don’t think I’m going to get over too quickly,” DeGruy said. “It’s still on my mind, what happened that day. This whole thing is really nothing to smile about, no matter how it turned out.”

DeGruy said he has been assigned temporarily to office work for the Department of Water and Power since the incident last July and has not yet decided whether he wants to return to his meter-reading route.

At issue during the trial was not whether or not DeGruy killed the dog but if he meant to harm the dog when he threw the tool.

“We could find no evidence of malice whatsoever,” said juror Hal Goldstein of Granada Hills after the verdict. “Nothing in Eric DeGruy’s past ever brought up that he held any malice toward anyone or anything.”

“I think it is a sad day when someone can throw a bar like that with deadly force and get away with it,” said Marjorie McIntyre, legislative representative for the Humane Civic Assn. “I really believe that he did throw it with malice.”

During the trial, defense attorney Larry Guzin argued that DeGruy threw the tool in fear because he had twice been bitten by dogs and twice had surgery on his knee for injuries he received while hopping fences to escape dogs.

DeGruy testified that he was walking toward his car when Brandy rushed at him, barking. After yelling at the dog and stamping his foot to scare her, he testified, he threw the tool in self-defense.

Despite the not-guilty verdict, McIntyre said the trial sets a positive precedent for future animal cruelty cases. “I think the fact that it was not treated as a trivial thing will be impressive for our cause,” she said.

After the verdict, Judge Michael S. Luros said the case “treads on new ground” because it required applying legal principles in areas that are not often explored.

“It was a very difficult case for lawyers to prepare and to present in the courtroom,” he said after the verdict. “How do you handle testimony about a victim which is a pet? Animals and pets sometimes bring out more emotion than people do.”