The Massachusetts Appeals Court today upheld the 2005 animal cruelty convictions of a former Beacon Hill woman who kept one dog and five cats without food in unsanitary conditions at an apartment she rented, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley announced.

In a four-page decision authored by Chief Justice Phillip Rapoza, the Appeals Court ruled that a Boston Municipal Court judge’s pre-trial decision allowing partial evidence recovered during the warrantless entry of a Boston Police officer into the home of HEIDI K. ERICKSON (D.O.B. 11/8/60) on the evening of April 27, 2003, was justified “because there was reasonable cause to believe that an emergency existed at the time of entry.”

The court ruled that the police officer’s entry into the apartment without a warrant was allowed as part of his duty to protect human life.

“[T]he officer’s observations concerning the condition of the apartment and the odor emanating therefrom also supported the belief that someone inside could be seriously injured or dying,” the court wrote. “The defendant’s contention that the officer should have waited in these circumstances to obtain a warrant flies in the face of an officer’s obligation to prevent the imminent loss of life, the basis for the warrant exception.”

Shortly before 5:30 that evening, Boston Police were dispatched to a Beacon Hill apartment building for a complaint of a barking dog. Upon arrival, officers spoke to a nearby resident who stated that a dog had been barking in a rear apartment since 3:00 that morning. The tenant further stated that there was a bad smell emanating from the rear apartment and that he had not seen the occupant for quite some time.

The officer went to the rear of the building and saw through a partially opened window an emaciated Great Dane. He also observed boxes and garbage strewn about the apartment and detected a foul stench emanating from its confines. Concerned that there might have been an injured or deceased person inside, the officer called out, received no response, and summoned the Boston Fire Department to help him gain entry into the locked and gated unit.

After gaining entry, the officer discovered five filthy, nearly dead cats in addition to the starving canine. The animals were covered in their own feces and urine. Officers of the Inspectional Services Department “opened the refrigerator and the kitchen cabinets and found forty-nine to fifty-one animal carcasses and containers holding what appeared to be animal parts or organs. They saw blood on the floor and in the refrigerator.”

In addition to upholding the lower court’s pretrial ruling, the Appeals Court also upheld the six animal cruelty charges, denying the defense’s contention that the animal cruelty statute requires proof of “knowing and willful conduct” to convict.

“We agree with the Commonwealth that the portion of the statute under which the defendant was convicted requires proof of only a general intent,” the court wrote. “The part of the statute under consideration here … does not mandate proof of a specific intent to cause harm. Rather, the statute simply requires that that a defendant intentionally failed to provide a sanitary environment or proper nutrition for an animal.”

Assistant District Attorney Janis Noble of Conley’s Appeals Division argued against Erickson’s appeal.