State v. Slayton

• Decision Date: 29 March 2007
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-SA 06-0208.,1 CA-SA 06-0208.
• Citation: 214 Ariz. 511,154 P.3d 1057
• Parties: The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Dan SLAYTON, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Coconino, Respondent Judge, Richard Remmert, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

154 P.3d 1057

214 Ariz. 511

The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Dan SLAYTON, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Coconino, Respondent Judge Richard Remmert, Real Party in Interest.

No. 1 CA-SA 06-0208.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

March 29, 2007.

Terence C. Hance, Coconino County Attorney By Ted S. Reed, Deputy County Attorney and Aaron Hall, Deputy County Attorney, Flagstaff, Attorneys, for Petitioner.

Aspey, Watkins & Diesel, P.L.L.C. By Bruce S. Griffen and David Thorn, Flagstaff, Attorneys for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

SNOW, Judge.

¶ 1 In this special action, the State of Arizona challenges the Coconino County Superior Court's decision on appeal to vacate the misdemeanor convictions of Richard Remmert, the real party in interest. The superior court vacated the convictions after determining, contrary to the ruling of the Flagstaff Justice Court, that Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 17-309(A)(1) and-309(A)(17)(2006) were not strict liability offenses and required a culpable mental state on the part of the perpetrator. By separate order, we previously accepted jurisdiction and vacated the superior court's ruling, stating that a written decision explaining our reasoning would follow. We now explain why we have determined that the provisions at issue are strict liability offenses.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 In 2004, Remmert applied for an Arizona hunting permit through United States Outfitters ("USO"). After USO received a permit for Remmert for a limited opportunity hunt in portions of hunting Units 6A, 19A, and 21, USO realized that it had erred in processing the application and that Remmert would not be able to get a trophy bull elk in those limited areas. USO refunded Remmert's deposit, but at Remmert's request, mailed him the permit. Remmert subsequently contacted Ty Goodman, a professional guide and outfitter, saying he had a permit for Unit 6A and traveled to Arizona for the hunt. Goodman, not realizing that the permit was valid for only a portion of Unit 6A, hunted that unit with Remmert. Remmert shot a bull elk several miles outside of the portion of the unit covered by his permit.

¶ 3 The next morning, an Arizona Game and Fish Department official confronted Remmert, and Goodman admitted that they had made a mistake. Goodman was not prosecuted, but Remmert was charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 17-309(A)(1), which provides that "it is unlawful to ... [v]iolate . . . any rule adopted pursuant to [Title 17]." The rule Remmert was charged with violating, Arizona Administrative Code R12-4-302(G), prohibits hunting outside the authorized unit. Remmert was also charged with possession of unlawfully taken big game in violation of A.R.S. § 17-309(A)(17) providing that "it is unlawful to ... [p]ossess or transport any wildlife¹ or parts of the wildlife which was unlawfully taken."

¶ 4 Prior to trial, the Flagstaff Justice Court, pursuant to a motion in limine filed by the State, determined that the offenses were strict liability crimes that did not require proof of a culpable mental state. Remmert was convicted on both counts and subsequently filed an appeal in the superior court.

¶ 5 On appeal, the superior court reversed, holding that "the statute contained an element of mens rea" and thus, the misdemeanors were not strict liability offenses. Although the superior court made no finding as to what actual mental state was required, it vacated Remmert's conviction and remanded the case to the justice court for an entry of dismissal. The State subsequently filed this petition for special action.

JURISDICTION

¶ 6 Although our special action jurisdiction is discretionary, we choose to exercise it in this case because it presents an issue of statewide importance, Ugalde v. Burke, 204 Ariz. 455, 457, ¶ 5, 65 P.3d 103, 105 (App. 2003), and presents circumstances in which the State has no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy on appeal. See A.R.S. § 22-375(A) (2002) (providing that "[a]n appeal may [only] be taken ... from a final judgment of the superior court in an action appealed from a justice of the peace or police court, if the action involves the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine or statute"). Here, because the State does not question the validity of § 17-309(A), but rather the superior court's interpretation of it, a special action provides the only means to seek relief. Guthrie v. Jones, 202 Ariz. 273, 274, ¶ 3, 43 P.3d 601, 602 (App.2002). We review the superior court's interpretation of §§ 17-309(A)(1) and—309(A)(17), de novo. See Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272, 275, 915 P.2d 1227, 1230 (1996)(holding that the interpretation of a statute is a question of law).

ANALYSIS

¶ 7 This matter turns on the construction and application of A.R.S. 17-309(A)(1) and— 309(A)(17)², which provide in pertinent part:

A. Unless otherwise prescribed by this title, it is unlawful for a person to:

1. Violate any provision of this title or any rule adopted pursuant to this title.

. . .

17. Possess or transport any wildlife or parts of the wildlife which was unlawfully taken.

¶ 8 In its petition the State asserts that §§ 17-309(A)(1) and—309(A)(17) are of the narrow class of crimes that are strict liability offenses, for which the commission of the crime does not require as an element that the perpetrator have a specific mental state. The State asserts, therefore, that the superior court erred when it ruled otherwise.

¶ 9 At common law, crimes were defined to require both guilty conduct and a culpable mental state whether it be intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952)(stating that common law crimes "generally constituted only from concurrence of an evil-meaning mind with an evil-doing hand").

¶ 10 More recently, however, statutes were enacted defining criminal acts, and courts concluded that common law crimes, when codified, continued to require intent or guilty knowledge, even if the statutes were silent on the matter. Id. at 252, 72 S.Ct. 240. In contrast, statutory crimes, if properly enacted within the police power, are often upheld without proof of an evil intent, and even without any mental element at all. Id. at 280, 72 S.Ct. 240. Such crimes involving "particular industries, trades, or products that affect public health, safety, or welfare, such as maintaining pure food and drugs, labeling, weights and measures, building codes, sanitation, and highway safety" are considered public welfare or regulatory offenses. State v. Young, 192 Ariz. 303, 311 n. 7, 965 P.2d 37, 45 n. 7 (App.1998). See, e.g., United States v. Holloway, 744 F.2d 527, 530-31 (6th Cir.1984) (holding the offense of possession of heroin required no showing of mens rea); State v. Manzo, 144 P.3d 551, 559 (Colo.2006) (holding that a statute prohibiting leaving the scene of an accident was a strict liability crime); State v. Mertens, 148 Wash.2d 820, 64 P.3d 633, 637 (2003) (providing that fishing without a license was a strict liability regulatory offense); State v. Ariz. Mines Supply Co., 107 Ariz. 199, 207, 484 P.2d 619, 627 (1971)(finding that conviction for air pollution did not require a showing of intent); Troutner v. State, 17 Ariz. 506, 507, 154 P. 1048, 1048 (1916) (holding a defendant who sold alcoholic beverage did not need to know that the beverage was alcoholic to be criminally liable for its sale). Many of the public welfare offenses "are not in the nature of positive aggressions or invasions, with which the common law so often dealt, but are in the nature of neglect where the law requires care, or inaction where it imposes a duty." Morissette, 342 U.S. at 255, 72 S.Ct. 240.

¶ 11 In Arizona, it is well settled that the legislature may enact laws imposing criminal liability regardless of whether the perpetrator had any particular mental state. See State v. Lycett, 133 Ariz. 185, 192, 650 P.2d 487, 494 (App.1982) (providing the state has wide latitude to enact strict liability statutes that protect public health, safety, and welfare); Ariz. Mines Supply Co., 107 Ariz. at 207, 484 P.2d at 627 (holding the legislature may make the doing of an act or the neglect to do something a crime without requiring criminal intent).

¶ 12 The legislature has specified that in determining whether a criminal statute requires the existence of a particular mental state:

[i]f a statute defining an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state that is sufficient for commission of the offense, no culpable mental state is required for the commission of such offense, and the offense is one of strict liability unless the proscribed conduct necessarily involves a culpable mental state.

A.R.S. § 13-202(B) (2001). Strict liability offenses, however, will be found only when there appears to be a clear legislative intent not to require any particular mental state for the commission of the crime. Spitz v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix, 127 Ariz. 405, 407, 621 P.2d 911, 913 (1980). When a statute fails to specify a mental state, but the proscribed conduct impliedly requires one, the appropriate mental state may be implied. State v. Berry, 101 Ariz. 310, 313, 419 P.2d 337, 340 (1966).

¶ 13 In order to resolve whether the offenses charged require a particular mental state, we must ascertain the legislature's intent in enacting them. See State v. Cutshaw, 7 Ariz.App. 210, 221, 437 P.2d 962, 973 (1968) (stating "whether a statute condemns conduct, regardless of intent, is initially a problem of ascertaining the legislative intent"). To do so we look first to the plain language of the statute, then to its context and history. State v. Bridgeforth, 156 Ariz. 60, 62-63, 750 P.2d 3, 5-6 (1988). See In re Paul M., 198 Ariz. 122, 124, ¶ 4, 7 P.3d 131, 133 (App.2000) (Legislative intent often can be discovered by...