Law school graduate receives probation in Vegas bird death
LAS VEGAS — A University of California, Berkeley, law school graduate was sentenced Monday to up to four years' probation and 16 hours of animal shelter work per month for beheading a chicken-sized exotic bird during a drunken escapade in October 2012 at a Las Vegas Strip resort.
Justin Alexander Teixeira, 25, apologized on Monday to the state of Nevada and to people affected by the death of the helmeted guineafowl named Turk.
“It was the worst moment of my life,” Teixeira said in his first public comment. “If there was anything I could do to undo it, I would.”
Security video showed Teixeira and two other Berkeley students — Eric Cuellar and Hazhir Kargaran — laughing and chasing the bird in a wildlife habitat garden area. To the horror of hotel guests having breakfast nearby, Teixeira wrung the animal's neck, tossed the bird's body and flipped the head into some nearby rocks.
Cuellar, 26, and Kargaran, 27, each pleaded guilty last year to reduced misdemeanor charges. Each was fined and sentenced to community service.
Teixeira of Placerville, Calif., pleaded guilty in May 2013 to one felony charge of killing another person's animal. He avoided trial on that charge and two other felony counts that could have gotten him up to eight years in prison.
Defense attorney Michael Pariente told Clark County District Court Judge Stefany Miley that Teixeira received top honors in the program.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.