Appellant was convicted of animal cruelty for accumulating 92 cats and keeping them in a 7 by 11 foot trailer. On appeal, she argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could find her guilty of animal cruelty for either depriving the animals of food and shelter or subjecting them to needless suffering. The appellate court found no error in the instructions, holding that the court’s interpretation of the statute was correct. The defense of necessity was not available to appellant, who kept the 92 cats in order to save them from euthanasia. Numerous existing statutes define what to do with stray cats and appellant was not at liberty to impose her own will over the public will. Appellant was convicted of animal cruelty for accumulating 92 cats and keeping them in a 7 by 11 foot trailer. On appeal, she argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could find her guilty of animal cruelty for either depriving the animals of food and shelter or subjecting them to needless suffering. The appellate court found no error in the instructions, holding that the court’s interpretation of the statute was correct.