Pit Bulldog’s Owner to Face Murder Trial in Boy’s Death

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for the precedent-setting murder trial of the owner of a pit bulldog that fatally mauled a 2-year-old Morgan Hill boy as he approached a marijuana patch where the animal allegedly was on guard.

In a brief order, the justices let stand a state Court of Appeal ruling--believed the first of its kind in the nation--that allowed Santa Clara County authorities to charge second-degree murder against Michael Patrick Berry in the 1987 death of James Soto, a neighbor’s child.

But the high court also limited the impact of the appellate ruling by barring its use as a precedent in other cases. Had the justices not taken such action, the appeal court decision would have been binding on trial courts throughout California.

If convicted on the second-degree murder charge, Berry, 39, would face a sentence of 15 years to life in prison.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Landra E. Rosenthal, who had urged the justices to leave the appeal court decision intact, said she was pleased with Wednesday’s action.

“This permits the prosecution to go forward and it will be up to a jury now to decide whether there is enough evidence to support the murder charge,” she said.

Berry’s attorney did not return telephone calls to his office.

According to authorities, Berry used a pit bull named Willy to protect a patch of marijuana valued at over $200,000. Berry kept the dog chained, but not fenced, near the side of his home, and allegedly had warned the Soto family, which included four young children, that the animal was dangerous.

On the day of the child’s death, his mother had left James Soto playing on the patio for a few moments while she went inside her home.

When she came out, the boy was gone, and minutes later his father found the dog mauling the child but was unable to free him from the jaws of the animal. The father screamed for Berry to call off the dog and Berry did so--but the child, bleeding profusely, died before an emergency crew arrived. Authorities charged Berry with second-degree murder, contending that he acted with the “implied malice” the law requires for such a prosecution. The evidence showed Berry knew the animal was dangerous but still kept it where it was accessible to potential victims, they said.

Berry’s use of a dog trained to fight showed “extreme indifference” to human life in a situation where there is a high probability of death, prosecutors said.

Lawyers for Berry sought dismissal of the murder charge but last March, a state Court of Appeal in San Jose upheld the prosecution. While there was no proof the dog ever before had attacked a human, there was “considerable evidence” the animal had been bred and trained to fight and “posed a known threat to people,” the panel said.

In a subsequent appeal to the state Supreme Court, Berry’s lawyers argued that the death of the boy was a “tragic accident” that did not warrant murder charges against the defendant.