PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — New details are coming to light from Lewis County officials about why manslaughter and animal cruelty charges will not be filed in the August 2022 deaths of a Portland hiker and his puppy.
“It’s hard to say what additional materials would’ve been found had this been investigated as a potential homicide from the get-go,” said Jonathan Meyer, the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney. “Obviously, there were issues with the investigation, that’s well-documented, and the family had the same question.”
Aron Christensen and his 4-month-old puppy Buzzo were shot and killed while on an overnight hike during a camping trip at Walupt Lake in Central Washington last August. According to the investigation report, the bullet recovered from Christensen matched the gun reportedly used in the deaths and police said someone confessed to the shooting, but despite that information, the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office says there’s still not enough to charge those involved with manslaughter and animal cruelty.
“We don’t know what evidence wasn’t found or what additional evidence there might have been, had the detectives been able to respond immediately,” said Meyer.
Hundreds of pages related to the deaths of Christensen and his dog detail where the investigation may have gone wrong, including where a responding deputy suggested Christensen’s wound may have been caused by a “tree limb or stick” before telling dispatch detectives did not need to come to the death scene. Those same first minutes were documented in radio traffic released to KOIN 6 News by the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office.
“Not a gunshot wound,” one deputy is heard saying over the radio, before another reported, “222 said there were puncture wounds but said it was not gun, no gun was found. They told the detectives to cancel.”
On Tuesday, Christensen’s loved ones told KOIN 6 they were frustrated and believed more than one agency dropped the ball. Meyer says much of it comes down to a lack of enough investigation and evidence up front by the sheriff’s office.
“We can look back at any investigation and say that there are things that should’ve been done differently or could’ve been done better. This investigation is no different. There are some things I indicated to the family that I was frustrated about regarding some of the things we were provided and the way that we were provided them. Some of the frustration I think is justified,” said Meyer. “I think obviously, we would’ve liked to have that information upfront. When we get these types of cases, we want them to be complete or at least as complete as they could be, and in this case, that wasn’t the product that we received. So that’s why we sent it back for further investigation. We also noticed there were some potential issues with the necropsy of the animal and so we paid for a second necropsy of the dog.”
Susan Mandiberg, a Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita at Lewis and Clark Law School, says manslaughter-1 cases can be hard to prove.
“The prosecution has to prove that the person was aware of a risk that what she or he did would cause a human being’s death. It’s not the same as saying ‘intent to cause death’ but you still have to prove subjectively that the person was aware that there was a risk of causing death,” said Mandiberg. “Ethically, they’re required to think carefully about that.”
KOIN 6 asked Meyer if any new charges could come in this case, to which he replied, “There are additional things we’re looking at, at this time.” As for what potential charges those involved could face, Meyer wouldn’t go into further detail, but at this time, they likely would not be felonies, but instead, misdemeanors.