Does anybody take responsibility for anything anymore? As hunters, we have an obligation to understand the laws. If we don’t understand them, we need to seek clarification until we do, or not partake in activities that might be breaking a law. Shame on the Outfitter too. He was “confused” as well? C’mon…
From the Az Daily Sun, read the full story here.
Poacher loses on appeal
By LARRY HENDRICKS
Assistant City Editor
Saturday, August 18, 2007
When a Michigan hunter shot a trophy elk illegally near Munds Park, he fought tooth and nail to keep from being convicted of the misdemeanor offense.
He lost in Flagstaff Justice Court but won in Superior Court. Judge Dan Slayton threw out the poaching conviction after Richard Remmert contended he didn’t know he was hunting illegally in an area near Munds Park.
But now, Remmert has lost again in the state Court of Appeals, and state Game and Fish officials, as well as prosecutors, are relieved by the decision. Had they lost again, enforcement of many hunting and fishing laws statewide would have been in jeopardy.
Now, Remmert has had his license suspended for five years and not just in Arizona. The suspension of hunting privileges will be enforced in 16 other states — a penalty game officials say is good deterrent to other potential poachers.
THE INCIDENT
According to documents filed in Coconino County Superior Court, the case began when Remmert applied in 2004 for a permit in Arizona to hunt for a trophy bull elk through a guided hunting company.
When the hunting company received the permit, it refunded Remmert his money because he would not be able to get a trophy bull elk in the units he had drawn.
Remmert then contacted another guide, stating he had a permit and wanted to hunt elk. He then shot a bull elk near Munds Park several miles outside the portion of the unit covered by his permit.
A Game and Fish officer happened upon the party, discovered the poaching offense and issued Remmert a ticket that amounted to a few hundred dollars.
“This would be a trophy in any state,” said Steve Andrews, a law enforcement program manager for Arizona Game and Fish.
The prosecution contended at trial that Remmert, knowing his permit area did not contain trophy elk, hunted in a different area.
The defense claimed that the permit area was so complex, confusing and small, neither Remmert nor his guide could understand the exact area.
But prosecutors contended that even if Remmert had been truly confused, the fact that the elk had been killed without the proper permits was enough for a conviction.
THE CASE
David Thorn, Remmert’s attorney, said the matter centered on a confusion over the limited game tag Remmert received. The outfitter who guided Remmert to the area also claimed ignorance as to the exact location of the tag’s boundaries.
“Remmert is completely reliant on this guy,” Thorn said. “He puts Remmert on this monster elk and he shoots the monster elk.”
It was an honest mistake, Thorn said. So his defense was that if the prosecution wanted to get him convicted of poaching, they would have to show the hunter knew he or she was breaking the law.
Remmert’s case went to trial in Flagstaff Justice Court, and the court decided that Remmert was guilty of poaching based upon strict liability law.
Strict liability does not require proof of a culpable mental state, said David Rozema, chief deputy Coconino County attorney. Basically, a person cannot say “I didn’t know,” or “I thought my hunting area ended over on that ridge.”
In other words, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove the offender acted with knowledge or intent, Rozema said.
The Legislature has determined that some Game and Fish laws do not require proof of a culpable mental state. Otherwise, any violator could claim ignorance, which is almost impossible to contest at trial.
Remmert appealed the decision to Coconino County Superior Court, and Judge Dan Slayton reviewed the case and overturned the lower court’s decision.
He reasoned that the offenses of poaching and removing an animal “… were not strict liability offenses and required a culpable mental state on the part of the perpetrator,” stated court documents.
The prosecution appealed the case to the state Court of Appeals. After review, the appellate court overturned Slayton’s decision.
Stated the court: “Thus, pursuant to the plain terms of the (poaching law), to establish a violation of this particular rule, the state must show merely that the alleged offender was hunting either out of season or outside the designated hunting area.”
The court went on to state that the Legislature’s intent was to protect resources in the state by making an offender responsible, even if he were truly ignorant of the law.