Vukov gave Elvis a bath. She said the bathwater “ran red” from his bloody wounds. But Vukov did not take him to a veterinarian. “I didn’t have money for a vet.” She did not call the police or 911. She did not call the humane society or the animal shelter. Because she failed to call any agency in connection with what she said was a rescue, three months later a warrant would be issued for her arrest.
When an Escondido police detective contacted Vukov in October, she began with denials. “She told me she didn’t know anything about a missing dog,” said detective Stephen Thompson. But then Vukov admitted that she did take Elvis. Vukov told Thompson that she rescued the dog because she believed it was being mistreated. The detective remembered Vukov telling him that “it was underfed and that it was out in the sun.”
Thompson was not satisfied with Vukov’s explanations. Vukov said that he told her to come down to the station and make a statement. “I just got kicked out of my house and my car broke down,” she remembered telling the detective. “He told me to take the bus.” The detective left his card with Vukov, but she did not contact him.
The Dog Goes Missing, Again
On August 27, when Belloni called Afghani to say that Elvis was gone, he named Vukov as the suspected dog-napper, and Afghani took down Vukov’s phone number.
Then, Afghani said, he did research, partly on the internet, and found out that Vukov sold jewelry. So he phoned Vukov and posed as a potential buyer and eventually she gave him directions to her home. When he arrived, he was surprised to see many of Vukov’s belongings scattered about her front yard. She was having a yard sale while she moved out of her house. Afghani said he was allowed to snoop around the house a limited amount, but he did not find Elvis. He said that he went “driving by, for a day, evening, night, midnight,” trying to find his dog.
Vukov said that within a few days of taking the dog — maybe three or four days — she discovered that Elvis was missing. One morning her back gate was half-open, and the rescued dog was gone. Vukov said in the 14 years that she lived in the house not one of her dogs had escaped from her backyard. She said it was not possible for a dog to jump the tall fence nor slide open the large, heavy gate. She believed someone took Elvis.
Vukov wondered if her friend Anne might have come in the middle of the night to take Elvis or maybe someone from the trainer’s place.
And Vukov was suspicious of the man who had contacted her and posed as a jewelry buyer. This man had called her many times. Afghani admitted that he phoned Vukov “300 times.” Vukov had captured Afghani’s cell phone number on her cell phone.
“I thought about it and thought about it,” said Vukov. She decided that the jewelry buyer was the dog’s owner. “I thought, ‘Gee, he’s got his dog back!’”
She sent a two-word text message — “How’s Elvis?” — to the number in her phone. Vukov thought the man might confirm that he had Elvis.
Afghani denied that he’d taken his dog back and said that Elvis is still missing. Afghani said he presently owns two Belgian Malinois dogs.
Vukov went on trial in San Diego’s North County Superior Court in June 2011, charged with felony dog theft.
Grand Theft Dog
California Penal Code 487(e) states that it is grand theft, a felony, to take a dog worth more than $950.
“Make no mistake, this was not a rescue,” prosecutor Laurie Hauf told the jury. She called the defendant’s actions “selfish, irresponsible, and careless.”
The deputy district attorney informed jurors that it is not okay to go onto someone else’s property and take a dog just because you believe you can do a better job with that dog.
“It really doesn’t matter what her purpose was, really,” said Hauf. “Doesn’t matter why she took it.”
“Why she did it is interesting,” the prosecutor allowed, “but it doesn’t excuse her.”
Hauf told jurors to set aside their emotions and “follow the law.”
The defense attorney, William Mathews, took the opposite stance. He told the jury that the defendant’s mental state at the time she took the dog was everything. “This is a specific-intent crime,” the public defender stated.
“The only element in dispute is whether she intended to steal that dog when she took the dog,” Mathews said.
Vukov did not intend to sell the dog nor hold it ransom nor keep it for herself, he said. The woman did not profit from taking the dog, and in fact, she only brought more trouble into her already desperate situation. Clearly, this was an act of compassion, said Mathews. “She didn’t steal the dog.”
“At the time of the taking, in her mind, it was a rescue, simple as that.”
The jury deliberated a full day before declaring Vukov guilty of grand theft.
After the verdict, the five women and seven men of the jury spoke with attorneys outside the courtroom. They said it was hard to determine if the dog was in danger. “Her actions did not prove the dog was in danger,” said one juror. They wished there had been photos of the dog’s bloody ears or any photo to support Vukov’s description of the dog when she took it.
The jurors decided it was not “a legal rescue” because Vukov did not contact authorities. They thought Vukov should have called 911 or the police or the humane society. They said that Vukov should have phoned a veterinarian if she really believed the dog’s life was in danger.
“We felt bad for her,” said one juror. “She did sink herself.” Jurors said they had sympathy for Vukov after they heard her testify.
“I hope the judge does show some leniency,” said one juror, and the others murmured agreement.
After the jury was dismissed, judge Runston Maino told the defendant that if the missing dog were returned it might “influence” him at sentencing time. Vukov later expressed wonder at this. She said she did not have Elvis, and she didn’t know where he was.
Maino ordered Vukov to serve 240 days in custody. Vukov surrendered herself at the Vista jail on October 6. ■