State v. Groseclose, 67 Idaho 71, 171 P.2d 863 (1946) (sustaining the constitutionality of the statutory language "proper care and attention;" "just what the words . . . mean may well cause a difference of opinion, but [this] does not render it too vague or uncertain to be enforceable"); Ferrias v. People, 71 Ill. App. 559 (1897) ("proper," as used in statute punishing failure to provide animals with proper food and drink, is to be understood in its ordinary sense); Moore v. State, 183 Ind. 114, 107 N.E. 1 (1914) ("necessary sustenance" and "proper food, drink, shelter, or protection from the weather" sufficiently definite); State v. Hafle, 52 Ohio App.3d 9, 367 N.E.2d 1226 (1977) ("necessary sustenance" not unconstitutionally vague); King v. State, 75 Okla. Crim. Rep. 210, 130 P.2d 105 (1942) ("necessary food, drink, or shelter" not unconstitutionally vague); McCall v. State, 540 S.W.2d 717 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976) ("necessary food, care, or shelter" sufficiently informs an accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and is not unconstitutionally indefinite); State v. Persons, 114 Vt. 435, 46 A.2d 854 (1946) (statute proscribing failure to give "proper food and drink" not so uncertain or indefinite as to deny due process). See also Wilkerson v. State, 401 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1981) ("unnecessarily" in statute proscribing "unnecessarily . . . deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats . . . any animal" not unconstitutionally vague; "criminal laws are not 'vague' simply because the conduct prohibited is described in general language"); State v. Kaneakua, 597 P.2d 590 (Hawaii 1979) (upholding statute proscribing "cruelty to animals" as not unconstitutionally vague).

We first note that the majority of state courts confronted with this issue have upheld the constitutionality of cruelty to animal statutes against claims of unconstitutional vagueness. See, e.g., State v. Kaneakua, 597 P.2d 590 (Haw. 1979); Moore v. State, 183 Ind. 114, 107 N.E. 1 (1914); State ex rel. Miller v. Claiborne, 211 Kan. 264, 505 P.2d 732 (1973); State v. Hafle, 52 Ohio App.2d 9, 367 N.E.2d 1226 (1977); King v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 210, 130 P.2d 105, 144 A.L.R. 1037 (1942); McCall v. State, 540 S.W.2d 717 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976). In only one of these cases, State v. Kaneakua, was the definition of "animal" attacked as being vague.

For consideration of the doctrine of ejusdem generis see the following cases: Ingram v. State, Okla., 51 Okla. Cr. 270, 3 P.2d 736; Curtis v. State, 78 Okla. Cr. 282, 147 P.2d 465; Ex parte Carson, 33 Okla. Cr. 198, 243 P. 260; Smith v. State, 79 Okla. Cr. 1, 151 P.2d 74. In construing 21 O.S. 1971 § 1685[ 21-1685], this Court stated in King v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 210, 130 P.2d 105: "It may be true that the statute above quoted is loosely drawn but throughout it reveals that its main purpose is to punish those who are cruel to domestic animals. It provides many ways for the carrying out of this cruelty.

As part of its enactment the Legislature elsewhere in the same chapter defined its key terms. In King v State ( 75 Okla. Cr. 210) the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals had an opportunity to pass on a statute strikingly similar to New York's law. The statute found in section 1685 of title 21 of Oklahoma Statutes Annotated is therein quoted (p 211) as: "Any person who shall willfully or maliciously overdrive, overload, torture, destroy or kill, or cruelly beat or injure, maim or mutilate, any animal in subjugation or captivity, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to himself or to another * * * or who shall cause, procure or permit any such animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, tortured, destroyed or killed, or cruelly beaten or injured, maimed or mutilated * * * or who shall willfully set on foot, instigate, engage in or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty".