the problem with the way the law is written is that it does not specifically state that a dog is "other property", as seen
here. however, him returning to the scene of the crime does not absolve him of this other responsibilities as laid out in the law. if you accept that a dog is "other property" and that immeasurable damage has occurred, then he was guilty of a third degree crime and punishable by a fine of between $200 and $400, or be imprisoned for a period of not more than 30 days, or both, for the first offense. it's not hard to prove that a dog is worth more than $250, which is the only dollar amount used to gauge whether a person "should have known" about the accident and that ignorance cannot be used as a defense.
it's sticky, only in that "dog" is not spelled out in the law. everything else, as in the fact that a dog is worth $250, that he knowingly left the scene of an accident and that, although he returned, he did not abide by the letter of the statute in offering his information to the owner of the dog or a police officer, is in line and
he should have been charged with a crime, to the very least as a 4th degree offense.
i'm kind of disappointed with our laws, in that they spell out some things but leave other things out, so that things like this are not addressed. i don't think anyone would argue that a dog is worth $250, and by that fact alone the owner's property was damaged, to an extent that it serves no purpose (the dog is dead). i would hope that someone look into this further and possibly offer up another reason why the law is written the way it is and perhaps correct the wording. a lot of our laws need to be revisited.