Arsonist Did the Crime and Must Serve the Time

Arson-For-Profit That Caused Death of Firefighter Results In 360 Months in Federal Prison

As I have said many times, arson-for-profit is the most evil form of insurance fraud and one where people are injured or die. Arson-for-profit fraud is highly profitable and is engaged in by people who have no concern for the lives or property of others.

In United States of America v. Steve Allen Pritchard, No. 18-6210, United States Court of Appeals for The Sixth Circuit (July 7, 2020) Judge Nalbandian, writing for the Sixth Circuit, started his opinion with a wise description of those who commit arson: “Some men just want to watch the world burn. Others start fires to collect insurance money. Steve Pritchard is the latter. But after playing with fire several times, Pritchard’s penchant for profiting from arson took a deadly turn. Instead of only damaging property, a fire started by Pritchard in June 2011 led to firefighter Charles Sparks’s death.” At issue is whether Pritchard caused Sparks’s death within the meaning of the federal arson statute.

the issueS

Pritchard’s appeal turns on first principles of causation. The common law typically permits liability only when the perpetrator acts as both the but-for and the legal cause of the harm. Laws that invoke proximate causation generally impose liability when the harm was foreseeable. Under the arson statute Sparks’s death need only be “a direct or proximate result of [Pritchard’s] conduct.” Sparks claimed he was neither a direct nor proximate cause of Sparks’ death.

FACTS

At 3:05 AM on June 30, 2011, a 911 caller reported a fire at the Pritchard residence. Eleven minutes later, firefighters, including Assistant Chief Charles Sparks, arrived on the scene. These firefighters found the house engulfed in “[a] lot of fire, a lot of flames.” During the firefighting, Sparks lost consciousness. Eight days later, Sparks died after being taken off life support.

To Brandi Pritchard’s purported surprise, Pritchard decided to drive her to work that morning, telling her that it “would be a good morning to go ahead and start . . . this fire in this house[.]” On the way to work, Pritchard proclaimed, “I did it[,]” referring to the fire. Pritchard had arranged for Brandi’s children and his dog to be out of the house that morning. Later, Brandi’s children would testify that Pritchard showed them photographs of the fire he took from his phone and that Pritchard implied he started the fire.

Pritchard wanted Brandi to tell investigators that he had spent the night in Louisville. And that’s the same story he gave to the police. Yet Pritchard’s alibi did not withstand scrutiny. Cell tower records revealed that Pritchard had not been in Louisville on the night of the fire.

Six days before the fire Brandi bought a $50,000 insurance policy for the house. So, when Pritchard learned about the insurance policy, he remarked about “how easy it would be to burn the house down and get the money for it.” After the fire, Brandi collected on her insurance policy. In the ensuing investigation of the fire, carried out by Kentucky State Police and the FBI, Pritchard pressured Brandi to lie to cover up the arson. When he became worried about Brandi’s resolve, Pritchard resorted to threats of violence to coerce Brandi not to confess. Pritchard’s threats continued for years; after the FBI interviewed Pritchard in 2014, he broke into Brandi’s house and threatened to harm her and her children if she told the truth about the arson. Brandi eventually confessed to her role in the arson, the insurance fraud, and the cover up.

At Pritchard’s trial, Dr. Thomas Hales concluded that firefighting “triggered” Sparks’s fatal heart attack. Regardless of arguments, objections and motions by his lawyer Pritchard was convicted and received a sentence of 360 months for arson causing death and a concurrent 240-month term for mail fraud.

ANALYSIS

There was no question that an arsonist started a fire to collect insurance money. A firefighter lost his life putting that fire out. The firefighter had a history of cardiac disease and passed away from a heart attack suffered during the fire. Pritchard, who started the fire, argued that he isn’t responsible for the firefighter’s existing heart condition. But the government argued that Pritchard’s arson set in motion foreseeable events where a firefighter could lose his life.

The statute permits punishment when “death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection[.]” [18 U.S.C. § 844(i)] Because the statute covers unlawfully destroying a building or other property with fire it covers injuries caused by Pritchard’s arson. The case turned on when death is “a direct or proximate result” of arson.

While proximate cause lacks a “precise definition,” proximate cause language generally injects a foreseeability element into the statute. Typically, proximate cause presents a narrower range of liability than an actual, or direct, cause.

A fundamental principle of criminal law is that a person is held responsible for all consequences proximately caused by his criminal conduct. Thus, where events are foreseeable and naturally result from one’s criminal conduct, the chain of legal causation is considered unbroken and the perpetrator is held criminally responsible for the resulting harm.

Pritchard’s theory that there can only be one cause of death sufficient for imposing liability flouts precedent. Pritchard argued that Sparks’s heart attack could have occurred at home due to diabetes or coronary artery disease and the arson only acted as a contributing factor that didn’t set the events of Sparks’s death in motion.

It is true that Sparks suffered from serious ailments, including diabetes and blocked arteries, and evidence showed that Sparks had not been taking his prescribed heart medication or insulin for some time. Pritchard contended that the presence of these other factors that could have been the cause of Sparks’s heart attack means the fire could not have proximately caused Sparks’s death.

Even though Pritchard offered evidence that Sparks’s pre-existing medical condition led to his death, the jury, after hearing and evaluating all of the evidence presented at the trial, found an unbroken chain of causation between the fire and Sparks’s heart attack. After all, the government entered evidence showing that firefighting stresses the heart, meaning that heart attacks can be caused by responding to arsons just like severe burns. And to show proximate cause, the government only needed to enter sufficient evidence that Sparks’s death was a foreseeable and natural result of Pritchard’s actions.

Because the jury relied on evidence showing Pritchard proximately caused Sparks’s death, a direct causation analysis is unnecessary.

Given Brandi’s testimony, testimony from neutral parties, and Pritchard’s faulty alibi, the jury had enough evidence to convict Pritchard without relying on his prior bad acts or West’s expert testimony, so any error in admitting that evidence would be harmless and Pritchard’s argument failed.

Pritchard came up with the idea for arson, presented it to Brandi for recruitment purposes, tried to sway her when she resisted, bragged about being a “genius” at arson-based insurance fraud, planned the logistics of the fire, directed the coverup, and threatened domestic violence to execute the coverup.

Pritchard’s conviction and sentence were affirmed.

ZIFL OPINION

Pritchard was and is a very bad man. He set multiple fires in his criminal career. The last arson-for-profit proved he was no arson genius. He had an incompetent alibi; involved Brandi as his alibi and co-conspirator, threatened to kill her and her children if she refused to lie, and did it so poorly that she testified against him. He directly and proximately caused the death of a firefighter and as a result deserved the sentence he received. He should spend all 360 months in federal prison and will have time to consider why he did not commit an insurance fraud that did not put firefighters at risk.