Court Opinion

ID: 9472609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:05:33.785568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:02.360615
License: Public Domain

CHOY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority today wrongly infers a criminal intent requirement into 18 U.S.C. § 1856 by requiring the government to show a willingness on the defendant’s part to allow the fire to burn beyond control or a failure to make all reasonable efforts to extinguish the fire. Because Congress clearly expressed its intent to impose strict liability on one who “permits” or “suffers” a fire to spread, regardless of the defendant’s willingness to permit the fire’s spread or reasonable efforts to prevent it from spreading, I respectfully dissent.
Legislative intent controls whether a criminal statute requires proof of criminal intent. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 406, 100 S.Ct. 624, 632, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980); United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 252, 42 S.Ct. 301, 302, 66 L.Ed. 604 (1922). Courts will sometimes infer that Congress did not intend to dispense with the criminal intent requirement even though the statute does not include specific language of intent. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 262, 72 S.Ct. 240, 249, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952). But when the government exercises its police power to enact a regulatory statute for social betterment, courts will infer that the legislature intended to dispense with the intent requirement. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. at 258-59, 72 S.Ct. at 247-48 (citing United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. at 252, 42 S.Ct. at 302). In particular,
[Wjhere a federal criminal statute omits mention of intent and where it seems to involve what is basically a matter of policy, where the standard imposed is, under the circumstances, reasonable and adherence thereto properly expected of a person, where the penalty is relatively small, where conviction does not gravely besmirch, where the statutory crime is not one taken over from the common law, and where congressional purpose is supporting, the statute can be construed as one not requiring criminal intent.
United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 613 n. 4, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 1120 n. 4, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971) (quoting Holdridge v. United States, 282 F.2d 302, 310 (8th Cir.1960)); see also Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. at 256, 72 S.Ct. at 246; W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law § 31 at 219-20 (1972).
In determining the legislative intent of section 1856, the majority failed to compare the language Congress used in this section with language used in surrounding sections. Section 1856 does not contain any language clearly evidencing congressional intent to impose a criminal intent requirement.1 The sections surrounding section *6921856, however, contain specific language of criminal intent, such as the words “intent,” “wantonly,” and “willfully.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1851-53, 1855, 1858. Congress would have included similar language in section 1856 had it intended to require proof of willful conduct. The absence of such language indicates that Congress did not intend to include criminal intent as an element of a section 1856 violation. See United States v. Gray, 448 F.2d 164, 168 (9th Cir.1971) (where Congress employs a term in one place and excludes it in another, court should not imply it where excluded), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 926, 92 S.Ct. 974, 30 L.Ed.2d 798 (1972); Pena-Cabanillas v. United States, 394 F.2d 785, 789-90 (9th Cir.1968) (court found no intent requirement because the relevant section omitted language of intent, and related sections contained such language); Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 397 Pa. 575, 155 A.2d 825, 829 (1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 848, 80 S.Ct. 1624, 4 L.Ed.2d 1731 (1960) (same); see also United States v. Lamb, 150 F.Supp. 310, 313 (N.D.Cal.1957) (first clause of related section 1852 requires no proof of criminal intent because it contains no specific language of intent), aff'd sub nom., Magnolia Motor & Logging Co. v. United States, 264 F.2d 950 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 815, 80 S.Ct. 54, 4 L.Ed.2d 61 (1959).
Congress may omit the intent requirement in a regulatory statute for social betterment. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. at 258-59, 72 S.Ct. at 247-48. I conclude that Congress intentionally omitted specific language of intent from section 1856 for social betterment. Congress enacted the predecessor to section 1856 as a regulatory measure, to further the public welfare by protecting forests.2 The legislature stated:
In the judgment of the committee, a strict enforcement of the penal statutes contained in said bill by the United States Courts will annually save millions of feet of lumber and to a great extent preserve the forests upon the public domain.
H.R.Rep. No. 1976, 54th Cong., 1st Sess. 1897.3 The Supreme Court acknowledged this predecessor statute’s purpose “to prevent forest fires which have been one of the great economic misfortunes of the country.” United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264, 267, 47 S.Ct. 597, 598, 71 L.Ed. 1040 (1927).4
Congress enacted section 1856 for the same purpose. Forest fires continue to be one of this country’s great misfortunes, the prevention of which is still, as it was in 1927, in the public welfare. Because Congress enacted section 1856 for social betterment, I would not infer an intent require*693ment, just as courts in other contexts have refused to infer such a requirement into other statutes designed to protect forests. See Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57, 69-70, 30 S.Ct. 663, 666-667, 54 L.Ed. 930 (1910); United States v. Wilson, 438 F.2d 525, 525-26 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam).
Consideration of the other Holdridge factors also supports my position that we should not infer a criminal intent requirement into section 1856. The punishment for violating section 1856 is not severe. It cannot exceed six months imprisonment, a fine of $500, or both. Moreover, a violation of section 1856 may result in the spread of forest fires, a serious consequence. Further, potential violators of section 1856 are capable of taking reasonable steps to prevent the spreading of fires. Finally, no common law crime, similar to a section 1856 offense, requires a showing of criminal intent.5
The majority does not consider these points but cites only general rules to support its position that section 1856 is not a “public welfare” statute. They argue that “strict liability criminal statutes remain the exception in our criminal system, not the rule,” and that “the Morissette holding in no way alters accepted modes of statutory construction to be applied in determining the standard of liability which Congress contends.” Such generalities, however, cannot override the clear expressions of congressional intent in this case to enact section 1856 as a regulatory statute for the preservation of forests.
We should, therefore, affirm the district court’s conviction because the evidence showed that Launder committed the act of kindling a fire in or near a forest upon government lands, and permitted the fire to burn beyond his control. Launder had the ability to prevent the fire from spreading or to avoid the necessity of lighting a fire. Launder, therefore, permitted the fire to burn beyond his control in violation of section 1856.
Although I realize the difficult situation in which Launder found himself, and the lack of serious culpability here, these considerations should not alter our decision in this case. When Congress decides to impose strict liability, it has concluded that all those who engage in the prohibited behavior, even those without criminal intent, must be convicted to further the public welfare. Once Congress has made this decision, we are bound to follow it.

. The majority argues that the terms “permits” and "suffers” "clearly require a willful act or a willful failure to act in the face of a clear opportunity to do so.” The majority, however, reads too much into Congress’ use of "permits” or "suffers.” Those terms may reasonably be construed as describing the act of lighting a fire and failing to prevent it, even unwillingly, from burning or spreading out of control, with knowledge of the possible danger. Accordingly, in another context, we have interpreted "permit" or "suffer” to mean "with knowledge.” Forres-*692ter v. Roth’s I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1981).
"Permitting” or “suffering” a fire to burn beyond control, therefore, is not necessarily the same as willfully permitting it to burn beyond control. Given the strong policy reasons for finding strict criminal liability here, we should not infer from Congress’ use of "permit” or “suffer” that it was imposing a criminal intent requirement.
If the government does not prove a willful failure to act, the majority would excuse the defendant unless the government shows that he failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the fire from spreading. I find nothing in the statute or in the authorities cited by the majority which supports this statement.

. Section 1856 was originally part of an act entitled "An Act To prevent forest fires on the public domain.” That Act, in part, stated:
That any person who shall build a campfire, or other fire, in or near any forest, timber, or other inflammable material upon the public domain, shall, before breaking camp or leaving said fire, totally extinguish the same. Any person failing to do so shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the same, shall be fined in a sum not more than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned for a term of not more than one year, or both.
Ch. 313, § 2, 29 Stat. 594 (1897).

. The defendant incorrectly argues that the legislative history's reference to "penal statutes” suggests that the statute's purpose was to punish rather than to regulate forests for the public welfare. All criminal statutes, whether regulatory or otherwise, carry penalties and, in that sense, are penal statutes.

. Alford involved an amended version of the original statute passed in 1897. See 274 U.S. at 266-67, 47 S.Ct. at 598.

. In this respect, this case is distinguishable from Morissette, where the Supreme Court inferred a criminal intent requirement into the statutory crime of embezzling, stealing or converting, where there was "an unbroken course of judicial decision in all constituent states of the Union holding intent inherent in this class of offense, even when not expressed in a statute." 342 U.S. at 261-62, 72 S.Ct. at 248-49.