Felony animal cruelty cases are never easy to read about, and the recent preliminary hearing in Uinta County District Court in Wyoming is no exception. At the center of the case is a series of videos that allegedly show a cow moose being roped, ridden, and spurred by men on a private ranch. Those recordings and the words spoken on them persuaded a judge that a jury should decide whether the men involved intended to “torture or torment” the animal under Wyoming’s animal cruelty laws.

The incident unfolded in May 2021 on Justin Martin’s M Arrow Ranch in Uinta County. According to testimony from Wyoming Game and Fish Officer Heather Sterling, several videos taken from Justin Martin’s phone depict different encounters with what appears to be the same cow moose. One video from May 4, 2021, allegedly shows Kylan W. Platt riding the moose after it had been roped. Audio captured in the background includes a man identified as Justin Martin encouraging Platt to “spur that son of a bitch,” language that the judge later described as sounding like cheering on the behavior.

Authorities became aware of the videos in July 2022 when Justin Martin’s phone was confiscated for an unrelated matter. A search warrant led to the initial discovery of one moose video, which prompted investigators to seek a second warrant because the animal cruelty concerns fell outside the scope of the original search. That second warrant revealed four videos involving the cow moose. The footage and associated screenshots, complete with time and date stamps, formed the core of the evidence presented in court.

Sterling testified that the videos from May 4 showed the animal was a female moose, identifiable by what she described as a “white vulva patch” visible in at least one of the clips. She characterized the moose as skinny and in poor condition, with little body fat and signs that it may have been either sick or old. White hairs on its forehead and neck, along with what she described as a sunken eye, raised the possibility the moose could have been blind in one eye.

In one 24 second video, Sterling said Platt could be seen riding the moose and appearing to enjoy the experience. According to her testimony, he smiled and aggressively spurred the animal as if he were breaking a horse to ride. The moose had a rope around its neck and another around one of its hind legs. Background audio attributed to Justin Martin captured him giving verbal encouragement, including the line urging Platt to spur the animal more.

The investigation also showed that Justin Martin sent the video of Platt riding the moose to more than 20 phone numbers. Additional videos from the same date reportedly show Platt standing in the bed of an off road vehicle, holding a lariat around the moose’s neck as it struggles, and another image shows him kneeling on the moose, pinning it down with the rope pulled tight around its neck and one front leg folded inward in a position similar to how a calf might be held during branding.

A separate video with time and date stamps from May 24, 2021, focused on another encounter, this time involving Range H. Martin. Sterling testified that this footage showed Range Martin on horseback with a lariat around a cow moose’s neck, dragging it through chest high sagebrush. The moose appears to fall and struggle to get back up. Audio from the video captured a voice identified as Justin Martin remarking, “I don’t think ole Roany likes that son of a gun too much,” a comment Sterling cited as another example of engagement in the incident rather than intervention to stop it.

During her on site investigation at Justin Martin’s property, Sterling said she found a moose carcass, though it was in a different location from where Platt was seen riding the moose in the videos. She declined to conclude that it was the same animal, and she also acknowledged that it was difficult to say with certainty whether the moose shown on May 4 and the one shown on May 24 were the same individual, especially given the abundance of moose in the nearby Bear River Divide public access area.

Defense attorneys focused heavily on this uncertainty and on the legal definitions of “torture” and “torment.” Platt’s attorney, J. Craig Abraham of Gillette, argued that the state had not produced evidence showing that his client’s actions met the threshold for felony cruelty to animals. He pointed out that Sterling did not identify visible marks, cuts, or blood on the animal from the videos and questioned what in the recordings she considered to be torture. He asked the court to dismiss the felony cruelty charge against Platt on the basis that the evidence was insufficient.

Similarly, Range Martin’s attorney, Jonathan Gerard of Lander, challenged the idea that dragging the moose with a lariat constituted torture or torment. He questioned Sterling on whether she had seen ranchers use ropes to move cattle, and whether law enforcement typically investigated such livestock handling practices. Gerard emphasized that Sterling did not know how far the moose had been dragged and noted that, in the video, the animal got back up. He maintained there was no clear indication that Range Martin’s actions reached the standard of torment set under Wyoming law.

Justin Martin’s attorney, Joe Hampton of Rock Springs, focused on his client’s alleged role as an accessory. He asked what exactly Justin Martin did to encourage the behavior aside from speaking and recording. Sterling responded that Martin’s comment about “ole Roany” and his failure to stop the activities demonstrated involvement, and she also said that filming the behavior could itself be seen as a form of encouragement. Hampton argued that the evidence did not show his client directly torturing or tormenting the moose and urged the court to dismiss the accessory charges.

Ultimately, Judge Michael Greer declined to dismiss the case. He emphasized that the preliminary hearing was not a trial and that his job at this stage was to decide whether a reasonable jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants intended to torture or torment the moose. He highlighted the context of the videos, the behavior depicted, and the comments made by onlookers as elements that a jury should be allowed to weigh.

The judge also stressed that under Wyoming law moose occupy a different legal category from livestock or predators, and are among the state’s most highly protected wildlife. He pointed out that the key issue was intent, specifically whether there was intent to cause the moose mental or physical suffering. In his view, that question was “subjective” and precisely the kind of question that juries exist to answer.

In considering Justin Martin’s role, Greer read aloud Martin’s own words from the video telling Platt to spur the animal. While he did not declare what a jury would ultimately decide, he said he believed a jury could interpret that language as encouragement or cheering. On that basis, he ruled that the accessory charges against Justin Martin, together with the primary charges against Platt and Range Martin, should be bound over to Uinta County District Court for trial.

The three men were each given a $5,000 personal recognizance bond and instructed not to violate any laws while awaiting further proceedings. Justin Martin faces two counts of accessory before the fact to felony cruelty to animals and two counts of accessory before or after the fact to wanton taking of a big game animal, specifically a cow moose. Both Range Martin and Platt are charged with felony cruelty to animals, wanton taking of a big game animal, and possession of live warm blooded wildlife without the required permit.

Each charge carries different potential penalties. The accessory before the fact to felony cruelty to animals allegations could bring up to two years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. The accessory charges tied to wanton taking of a big game animal could mean up to one year in jail and a $10,000 fine. The felony animal cruelty counts carry potential sentences of two years in prison and fines up to $5,000, while the wanton taking of a big game animal charges carry up to one year in jail and a $10,000 fine. The permit related charge tied to possession of a live cow moose carries a possible six month jail term and up to a $1,000 fine.

The case now moves out of the preliminary phase and into the trial process, where a jury will examine the same evidence in greater depth. The central themes highlighted in the hearing from video recordings to questions about intent and the legal status of moose in Wyoming will likely remain at the forefront. Whatever the eventual verdict, the proceedings underscore how smartphone video, wildlife protection laws, and interpretations of animal suffering can converge in a modern courtroom. Read more at Cowboy State Daily