United States v. Steve Pritchard
20a0203p.06 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), an arsonist's conduct is the proximate cause of a firefighter's death if the death was a foreseeable and natural result of the arson, even if the firefighter had a pre-existing medical condition that made them more susceptible to harm.
Facts:
- Firefighter Charles Sparks had a history of coronary disease, hypertension, and diabetes, had previously suffered a heart attack in 2005, and was not consistently taking his prescribed medication.
- Six days before the fire, Brandi Pritchard, wife of Steve Pritchard, purchased a $50,000 insurance policy on their house.
- Steve Pritchard developed a plan to burn the house for the insurance money and recruited Brandi by recounting his past successes with insurance fraud arsons.
- On June 30, 2011, after ensuring his children and dog were not home, Pritchard set fire to the residence, later telling Brandi, "I did it."
- Charles Sparks responded to the fire, lost consciousness while fighting the blaze, and was transported to the hospital.
- Eight days later, Sparks died after being taken off life support, with the cause of death being a heart attack.
- Following the arson, Pritchard created a false alibi and, for several years, threatened Brandi and her children with violence to coerce her into lying to investigators.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Steve Pritchard and Brandi Pritchard for Malicious Destruction of Property by Fire resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), and Mail Fraud.
- Brandi Pritchard pleaded guilty.
- Steve Pritchard was tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
- Pritchard filed a pre-trial motion to suppress cell-site location information obtained by the government without a warrant, which the district court denied.
- The jury found Pritchard guilty of arson causing death.
- The district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for being a leader in the criminal activity and sentenced Pritchard to 360 months imprisonment.
- Pritchard, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with the United States as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an arsonist's conduct proximately cause a firefighter's death under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) when the firefighter, who has a pre-existing heart condition, suffers a fatal heart attack while responding to the fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Nalbandian, J.
Yes. A firefighter's death from a pre-existing condition exacerbated by responding to a fire is a foreseeable and natural result of an arsonist's criminal conduct. The federal arson statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), requires that the death be a 'direct or proximate result' of the defendant's conduct. Proximate cause exists where the harm is a foreseeable consequence of the criminal act. Injury to a firefighter is a foreseeable result of arson. The government provided expert testimony that the strenuous physical exertion of firefighting can trigger a fatal heart attack. Although Sparks had pre-existing conditions and was not taking his medication, these factors do not break the chain of legal causation. A rational jury could conclude that Pritchard's arson was a substantial factor in causing Sparks’s death, making him criminally responsible for the resulting harm.
Concurring - Clay, J.
Yes. While the majority correctly finds that Pritchard proximately caused Sparks's death, its analysis of the statutory term 'direct cause' is unnecessary and incorrect dicta. The majority suggests 'direct cause' could mean 'actual cause' (but-for cause), which would improperly expand the statute's scope and conflict with the common law understanding that 'direct cause' is a synonym for 'proximate cause,' focusing on the directness of the relationship between conduct and harm. Interpreting the statute to require only 'actual cause' would run counter to principles of statutory construction and the rule of lenity. However, because the conviction is properly affirmed on proximate cause grounds alone, I concur in the judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad application of proximate causation in federal criminal law, particularly the 'eggshell victim' rule, where a defendant is responsible for the full extent of harm caused, even if the victim had an unforeseeable vulnerability. The ruling solidifies that death or injury to a first responder is a foreseeable consequence of crimes like arson, regardless of the specific medical mechanism of the injury (e.g., heart attack vs. burns). For future cases under § 844(i), this precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to argue that a victim's underlying health condition constitutes an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation, thereby strengthening the prosecution's ability to secure convictions for deaths that result indirectly from an arson.
