Mental health evaluation ordered for man accused of burning cat to death
Darren Annovi, the 42-year-old resident of 400 Towers in Batavia, who is accused of placing his live cat in an oven and baking it to death, must undergo a forensic mental health evaluation, Judge Robert Balbick ruled today at Annovi's arraignment in City Court.
A key issue at the arraignment was whether to release Annovi on bail or on his own recognizance. Typically, a person with no criminal record and a high score on the bail evaluation would be a sure bet to be released without bail, and since state guidelines don't take into account the nature of the criminal charge, but Balbick was concerned about the last sentence in the bail evaluation.
He said that it indicated Annovi might a danger to the community.
That assessment reportedly came from corrections officers at the jail and Assistant Public Defender Lisa Kroemer suggested that since they weren't trained mental health professionals, maybe that shouldn't weigh heavily in the bail hearing.
She thought an evaluation by a professional would be appropriate.
Bail is supposed to be based on the likelihood the defendant will appear for his next court date, but Balbick said he thought it reasonable to consider Annovi's mental health state since that, too, could be a factor in whether he would appear as ordered.
Annovi is charged with aggravated animal cruelty.
Bail was set at $5,000 cash or $10,000 bond.
He is scheduled to next appear in City Court at 9:30 a.m., July 21.
Wise decision by Judge Balbick.
A metal evaluation is a good idea. He appears to be smirking when he was photographed, in an annoying self satisfied and pleased what he did, manner.
How did someone 42 years old get an apartment at 400 Towers?? I understand he was employed at ARC?? If so I might suggest he was not disabled. Possible he has a mental handicap, which there are local places for, not 400 Towers...Sounds like another Bureaucratic mess up. Nice job HUD !!
Metal Evaluation...seriously...who pays for that 'we do'. Obviously he's mentally disturbed. He put his cat in the oven. Who gave him a pet. I don't even want to think about that. And what I truly don't understand is why anyone with a conscious could even defend him. He's guilty. Why are we spending taxpayers money on this nonsense? The end result will be a slap on the wrist and back into society!
Teri. Assuming you wrote the comment that contains the question, "Why are we spending taxpayers money on this nonsense?", I think a better question would be, "Why would YOU allow someone to do that to a cat?"
After all, by stating that, "He put his cat in the oven." and "He's guilty.", I'm left to assume that you were there when this happened.
So, again, let me ask you. "Why would YOU allow someone to do that to a cat?"
Oh Ed. Terri is apparently upset and writing it the way she feels. Quit being the 'Grammar Patrol'. She's apparently wasn't there or she wouldn't be as upset as the rest of us.
As far as this person being in the 400 Towers. I "ASSUME" he could be disabled with some type of permanent injury, illness or mental illness. Even at 40, you can be permanently disabled for one of the three. Mental illness can be caused by several things. Illness the same. We all know what causes permanent injury. Therefore, you can't say it's not possible for the 400 Towers to not be accessible to him because of his age, injury, illness or mental defect. It's "discriminating". Just my opinion.
Ed, you're absolutely correct, I wasn't there. You win the prize! So you're saying because neither of us were there, that the cat put him or herself in the oven and turned it on?? Or maybe someone snuck into his room while he was sleeping and did it without his knowledge and then he woke up just as the officers arrived. What do you think? I'm certainly open to the realm of possibilities on this one.To answer your question, I would NEVER allow someone to harm an animal in my presence...EVER. I'd be sitting next to Darren in a cell. This kind of behavior is consistent with sociopaths, no regard for life, human or animal. If he can do that to his cat, I'm fairly confident that if he could do that to a human being. It disgusts me! I will give the judge credit for trying to keep someone with no regard for life, human or animal, off the street. But statistics say he'll be back in society, and the taxpayers will pay for his lively hood, and then will read about him in the news once again. I'd love to be wrong. Thanks for discussing!
I'm guessing we are talking about a mental health evaluation, not a metal evaluation, it makes one think somethings in the water if they do a metal eval..Not trying to defend Ed, but being charged with a crime doesn't make a person guilty of anything,thats for the courts to decide, not public opinion.If this guy is guilty, he definately has issues,but I can't help but agree with the judge under these circumstances.I was falsly accussed once, and I basicallyt didn't offer up an alibi, or even say anything to the detectives except that I was innocent,and once they charged me with a crime, I would then prove my innocence, and make a few detectives look silly.Needless to say,I was never charged,just lectured about cooperation.My reply was, know your facts before you go and accuse people of serious crimes, with a little bit of investigative police work,they would have known beyond the shadow of any doubt,that I had nothing to do with the crime.To me that was harrassment, because the detectives didn't do thier homework,if they did, they wouldn't of had to waste my time or taxpayer dollars chasing dead horses.
Terri, you bring up a good point, he will be back, but just maybe he needs to be medicated, maybe he was on medication and stopped taking it.
Damn,comment posted before I finished the spell check,back to copy and paste again.I'm guessing mental illness is present given the nature of the crime.
Hi, Teri. You asked, "What do you think?"
Honestly, I "think" Mr. Annovi probably put the cat in the oven. I "think" Mr. Annovi probably has "mental" issues (I realize that there ARE people that "run the gamut", from those who truly don't know that what they are doing is wrong, to those that are just sadistic - each of which could/should be considered "mental issues"). I "think" (well, actually, I KNOW) that I've seen enough things in my lifetime to realize that what "I think" doesn't always coincide with "what is". THAT (the previous sentence) is why I (try) to be careful to not pronounce someone guilty of something.
Like most people, I have my own opinions on things. When I state those opinions, I TRY to remember to also state that it's just my opinion (I say TRY, because I know I'm not infallible). If I KNOW something is fact, I (usually) don't bother to qualify what I say with the words, "It's my belief", "I think", etc., because I can back up what I say with fact.
Not really sure why you wanted to know what I think, but, Thanks!, for being so concerned.