State of Colorado, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and Parks and Wildlife Commission and Division of Parks and Wildlife v. 5 STAR FEEDLOT, INC. ( 2021 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-07-14">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/888828588" data-vids="888828588" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">486 P.3d 250</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">State of Colorado, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES</span></span>; and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Parks and Wildlife Commission and Division of Parks and Wildlife</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><span class="ldml-party"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-name">5 STAR FEEDLOT, INC.</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 19SC986</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">May 3, 2021</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">Rehearing Denied June 1, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="277" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="277" data-sentence-id="277" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Christopher G. Breidenbach</span></span>, Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Joseph G. Michaels</span></span>, Senior Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="467" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="467" data-sentence-id="467" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Richards Carrington, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Christopher P. Carrington</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Ruth M. Moore</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="577" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="577" data-sentence-id="577" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amici Curiae</span> Colorado Livestock Association</span>, Colorado Farm Bureau, <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Corn Growers Association</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Cattlemen's Association</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">National Cattlemen's Beef Association</span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry & Groom, LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">John J. Barry</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Kent A. Naughton</span></span>, Greeley, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="859" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="859" data-sentence-id="859" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> Pacific Legal Foundation: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Jeffrey W. McCoy</span></span>, Sacramento, California, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Oliver J. Dunford</span></span>, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="1001" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="1001" data-sentence-id="1001" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="1008" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1008" data-sentence-id="1008" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">SAMOUR</span></span> announced the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span> and delivered an opinion, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT and JUSTICE GABRIEL join.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1143" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1143" data-sentence-id="1143" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1143"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> In a <span class="ldml-entity">1970</span>s hit song, <span class="ldml-entity">John Fogerty</span> asks—in his trademark raspy snarl—<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"And I wonder, still I wonder, who'll stop the rain?"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="1143" data-sentence-id="1268" class="ldml-sentence">Creedence Clearwater Revival, <i class="ldml-italics">Who'll Stop the Rain, on</i> Cosmo's Factory <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Fantasy Records <span class="ldml-entity">1970</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1143" data-sentence-id="1363" class="ldml-sentence">Many a person in eastern Colorado may have pondered this rhetorical question in the spring of <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span>, when a severe three-day storm deluged the area with over six inches of rain.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1143" data-sentence-id="1540" class="ldml-sentence">Two inches of water fell within thirty minutes on the first day, a once-in-a-half-century occurrence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1143" data-sentence-id="1642" class="ldml-sentence">During the storm, a mixture of wastewater and rainwater overflowed from one of the wastewater containment ponds in a cattle feedlot operated by <span class="ldml-entity">5 Star Feedlot, Inc.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-localname">5 Star</span>"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1143" data-sentence-id="1819" class="ldml-sentence">That water then crossed several miles of land and ultimately found its way to the South Fork of the Republican River, killing an estimated 15,000 fish and giving rise to this litigation.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2005" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2005" data-sentence-id="2005" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2005"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> initiated a civil action against <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">5 Star.</span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2005" data-sentence-id="2107" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> sought to recover the value of the deceased fish based on 5 Star's alleged violation of three predicate statutory provisions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking statutory provisions"</span>)</span> which, with some exceptions not pertinent here, make it unlawful for any person to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span>—i.e., to kill or otherwise acquire possession of or control over—certain wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2005" data-sentence-id="2447" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> filed <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motions for summary judgment</span> on the issue of liability.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2005" data-sentence-id="2527" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> denied 5 Star's motion, granted <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s motion, and, following a bench trial on damages, ordered 5 Star to pay <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> $625,755.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2005" data-sentence-id="2681" class="ldml-sentence">5 Star then appealed.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2702" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2702" data-sentence-id="2702" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2702"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> reversed, holding that the taking statutory provisions required <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_2790" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="253" data-vol="486"></span> <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> to prove that 5 Star acted knowingly or, at minimum, performed an unlawful voluntary act.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2702" data-sentence-id="2891" class="ldml-sentence">Because it found that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had failed to present any evidence of either element, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> remanded for entry of judgment in 5 Star's favor.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3047" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3047" data-sentence-id="3047" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3047"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> now hold that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was required to prove that 5 Star performed the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(the actus reus)</span>.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3047" data-sentence-id="3203" class="ldml-sentence">Consequently, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had to prove that 5 Star, consciously and as a result of effort or determination, performed a voluntary act by which it killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish without authorization.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3437" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3437" data-sentence-id="3437" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3437"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> The only evidence presented by <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> of a voluntary act performed by 5 Star was the lawful, years-long operation of wastewater containment ponds.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3437" data-sentence-id="3590" class="ldml-sentence">But the lawful, longstanding operation of such ponds wasn't, even according to <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s complaint, an act through which 5 Star killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3437" data-sentence-id="3789" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, as <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> admitted in its complaint, it was the <i class="ldml-italics">discharge</i> from one of 5 Star's wastewater containment ponds that led to the fish's destruction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3437" data-sentence-id="3944" class="ldml-sentence">That discharge, however, was triggered by an act of God—the rainstorm—not an act voluntarily performed by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">5 Star.</span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3437" data-sentence-id="4058" class="ldml-sentence">Since <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to formally allege, never mind present proof, that 5 Star's lawful, years-long operation of wastewater containment ponds killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish, it could not satisfy the voluntary act or actus reus requirement of the taking statutory provisions.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4371" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4371" data-sentence-id="4371" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4371"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> Hence, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred both in entering summary judgment against 5 Star and in denying 5 Star's <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motion</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4371" data-sentence-id="4533" class="ldml-sentence">Given this conclusion, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not, and thus do not, decide whether <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was also required to prove that 5 Star acted knowingly.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4371" data-sentence-id="4667" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' judgment, albeit on narrower grounds, and remand with instructions to return <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> for entry of judgment against <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> and in 5 Star's favor.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_4882" data-ordinal_end="1" data-types="background" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-ordinal_start="1" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="I" id="heading_4882"><span data-paragraph-id="4882" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="4882" data-sentence-id="4882" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4882" data-sentence-id="4885" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="4913" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4913" data-sentence-id="4913" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4913"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> 5 Star runs a cattle feedlot in eastern Colorado near the South Fork of the Republican River and <span class="ldml-entity">Hale Ponds</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4913" data-sentence-id="5025" class="ldml-sentence">As part of its operations, 5 Star uses containment ponds to store wastewater.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4913" data-sentence-id="5103" class="ldml-sentence">There is no finding in the record that these ponds—each of which can hold more than twenty-four million gallons of wastewater—were built or maintained in violation of any Colorado law, rule, or regulation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4913" data-sentence-id="5309" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> did not ask <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> to make any such finding.<a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="5384" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5384" data-sentence-id="5384" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5384"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> Within three miles of 5 Star's feedlot is the South Fork of the Republican River, which is home to an array of wildlife, including the southernmost population of the Brassy Minnow, a threatened species, and rare fish like the Stonecat and Orangethroat Darter.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5384" data-sentence-id="5647" class="ldml-sentence">The river flows through the <span class="ldml-entity">South Republican State Wildlife Area</span> and feeds <span class="ldml-entity">Hale Ponds</span>, which are among the scarce locations for public sportfishing in the region.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5809" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5809" data-sentence-id="5809" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5809"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> In the spring of <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span>, an act of God—a three-day rainstorm of historic proportions—impacted both 5 Star's feedlot and the South Fork of the Republican River.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5809" data-sentence-id="5970" class="ldml-sentence">More than six inches of water inundated the area.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5809" data-sentence-id="6020" class="ldml-sentence">On the first day alone, two inches fell within thirty minutes, a phenomenon which, on average, takes place only twice every century.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5809" data-sentence-id="6153" class="ldml-sentence">The extreme rainstorm caused overflow from, and a partial breach in, one of 5 Star's wastewater containment ponds.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5809" data-sentence-id="6268" class="ldml-sentence">A mixture of wastewater and rainwater then escaped from that pond.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5809" data-sentence-id="6335" class="ldml-sentence">Despite 5 Star's prompt corrective measures, 500,000 gallons of wastewater and rainwater eventually flowed over several miles of land and into the river.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5809" data-sentence-id="6489" class="ldml-sentence">A few days later, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> recovered <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_6527" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="254" data-vol="486"></span> 379 dead fish from the river and 1,389 dead fish from <span class="ldml-entity">Hale Ponds</span>.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="6594" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6594" data-sentence-id="6594" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6594"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> filed a complaint against 5 Star under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6594"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span>, which authorizes the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife</span> to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"bring ... a civil action against any person, in the name of <span class="ldml-entity">the people of the state</span>, to recover possession or value or both possession and value of any wildlife <i class="ldml-italics">taken</i> in violation of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6594"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 1 to 6</span></a></span>"</span> of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6594"><span class="ldml-cite">title 33</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6594" data-sentence-id="6946" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6594" data-sentence-id="6964" class="ldml-sentence">In its amended complaint, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleged that 5 Star had violated the taking statutory provisions, which make it unlawful to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> protected wildlife:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_7118" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="7118" class="ldml-sentence">• <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Section</span> <span class="ldml-cite">33-2-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, states that, except as otherwise provided in regulations issued by the <span class="ldml-entity">Parks and Wildlife Commission</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the Commission"</span>)</span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"it is unlawful for any person to <i class="ldml-italics">take</i> ... nongame wildlife"</span> that the Commission has deemed to be in need of management;</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_7397" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="7397" class="ldml-sentence">• <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Section</span> <span class="ldml-cite">33-2-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, states that, except as otherwise provided in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7397"><span class="ldml-cite">article 33</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"it is unlawful for any person to <i class="ldml-italics">take</i> ... any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the list of wildlife indigenous to this state determined to be threatened within <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7397"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a> of <span class="ldml-entity">this section</span></span>"</span>; and</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_7725" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="7725" class="ldml-sentence">• <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Section</span> <span class="ldml-cite">33-6-109<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, states that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i]</span>t is unlawful for any person to ... <i class="ldml-italics">take</i> ... any wildlife that is the property of this state as provided in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7725"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-1-101</span></a></span>, except as permitted by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7725"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 1 to 6</span></a></span>"</span> of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7725"><span class="ldml-cite">title 33</span></a></span> or by rule or regulation of the Commission.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="8000" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8000" data-sentence-id="8000" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphases added</span>.)</span><a href="#note-fr4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr4">4</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8000" data-sentence-id="8018" class="ldml-sentence">It is uncontested that the fish that perished were protected under one or more of these provisions.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8117" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8117" data-sentence-id="8117" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8117"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> Relying on <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span>, 5</span></a></span> Star filed a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>, asserting that it hadn't taken any fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8117" data-sentence-id="8226" class="ldml-sentence">After <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> denied that motion, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> filed <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motions for summary judgment</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8117" data-sentence-id="8325" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> argued that the fish had died and that 5 Star was strictly liable for such deaths.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8117" data-sentence-id="8418" class="ldml-sentence">Although it acknowledged that the taking statutory provisions declare certain conduct <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unlawful,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> nonetheless claimed that it was under no obligation to present evidence of either a culpable mental state <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(mens rea)</span> or a voluntary act <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(actus reus)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8117" data-sentence-id="8676" class="ldml-sentence">5 Star, in turn, maintained that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> was required to prove that 5 Star both acted with the culpable mental state of knowingly and performed an unlawful voluntary act, but had presented evidence of neither element, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation in opposing 5 Star's <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9036" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9036" data-sentence-id="9036" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9036"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> In a lean order, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> denied 5 Star's motion and granted <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s motion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9036" data-sentence-id="9131" class="ldml-sentence">After implying that 5 Star had taken the fish by killing the fish, it ruled that 5 Star was strictly liable.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9036" data-sentence-id="9240" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> added that no genuine issue of material fact remained on the issue of liability.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9036" data-sentence-id="9331" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The case</span> then proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of damages.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9036" data-sentence-id="9397" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> ultimately ordered 5 Star to pay $625,755 to <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9462" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9462" data-sentence-id="9462" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9462"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> 5 Star appealed, raising three contentions: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> it was not liable for the fish's deaths because it had neither acted with the culpable mental state of knowingly nor performed an unlawful voluntary act that killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> genuine issues of material fact remained that rendered the grant of <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span> erroneous; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> its own <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span> should have been granted because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had presented insufficient evidence as to the cause of the fish's demise.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9462" data-sentence-id="10021" class="ldml-sentence">Believing that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s motion had been mistakenly granted and that its <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motion</span> had been mistakenly denied, 5 Star asked <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> to reverse the summary judgment in favor of <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> and to remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">5 Star.</span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10283" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="10283" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10283"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> Siding with 5 Star, a split division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> reversed in a published <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_10372" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="255" data-vol="486"></span> opinion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="10382" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deptofnatresv5starfeedlot,inc,2019coa162m" data-prop-ids="sentence_10283"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dep't of Nat. Res. v. 5 Star Feedlot, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 COA 162M</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10283"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 2</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––"><span class="ldml-cite">––– P.3d ––––</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="10461" class="ldml-sentence">The majority of the division concluded that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had misinterpreted the taking statutory provisions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="10576" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_10461"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="10580" class="ldml-sentence">More specifically, the division agreed with 5 Star's first contention and held that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was required to prove that 5 Star both acted knowingly and committed an unlawful voluntary act by which it killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="10850" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_10580"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 16, 27</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="10868" class="ldml-sentence">Finding that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had failed to present evidence of either element, the division reversed <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in 5 Star's favor.<a href="#note-fr5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr5">5</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="11061" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_10868"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 26, 31, 42</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="11083" class="ldml-sentence">Of particular relevance here, the division explained that, even assuming, as <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> contended, that the taking statutory provisions create strict liability crimes, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> still could not prevail given its failure to argue, let alone prove, that 5 Star performed an unlawful voluntary act.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10283" data-sentence-id="11378" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_11083"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 27, 29, 31</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11399" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11399" data-sentence-id="11399" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11399"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Fox</span> concurred in part and dissented in part</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11399" data-sentence-id="11454" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11454"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11454"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 43–50</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Fox, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11399" data-sentence-id="11524" class="ldml-sentence">Though <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> agreed that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was not entitled to summary judgment, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> disagreed that summary judgment in 5 Star's favor was warranted.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11399" data-sentence-id="11664" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11524"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 43, 49</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11681" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11681" data-sentence-id="11681" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11681"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> then sought our intervention.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11681" data-sentence-id="11725" class="ldml-sentence">In its <span class="ldml-entity">petition for review</span>, it asserted that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> it didn't have to prove that 5 Star acted with a culpable mental state because, in its view, the taking statutory provisions describe strict liability offenses, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> it was required to prove that 5 Star committed any voluntary act <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(not necessarily an <i class="ldml-italics">unlawful</i> voluntary act)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11681" data-sentence-id="12053" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> accepted <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s appeal.<a href="#note-fr6" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr6">6</a></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="II. Analysis" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_12085" data-ordinal_end="2" data-types="analysis" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-ordinal_start="2" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="II" id="heading_12085"><span data-paragraph-id="12085" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="12085" data-sentence-id="12085" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12085" data-sentence-id="12089" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="12097" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12097" data-sentence-id="12097" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12097"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> Before <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> up-anchor and set sail, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> brush up on the applicable standards of review and the relevant principles of statutory interpretation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12097" data-sentence-id="12242" class="ldml-sentence">With our course illuminated by these lighthouses, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> embark on our analytical voyage and consider whether <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was required to prove an unlawful voluntary act, as the division ruled.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12097" data-sentence-id="12430" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> hold that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was required to prove that 5 Star performed the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(the actus reus)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12097" data-sentence-id="12579" class="ldml-sentence">Consequently, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had to prove that 5 Star, consciously and as a result of effort or determination, killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish without authorization.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12097" data-sentence-id="12776" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> end by concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> presented no such evidence and that, therefore, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred both in granting <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span> and in denying 5 Star's <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motion</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12097" data-sentence-id="12980" class="ldml-sentence">In view of this disposition, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> leave for a future expedition the question of whether the taking statutory provisions impose strict liability or require proof of the culpable mental state of knowingly.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-value="A. Applicable Standards of Review and Relevant Principles of Statutory Interpretation" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_13181" data-ordinal_end="1" data-types="standardofreview" data-content-heading-label="A. Applicable Standards of Review and Relevant Principles of Statutory Interpretation" data-ordinal_start="1" data-confidences="medium" data-specifier="A" id="heading_13181"><span data-paragraph-id="13181" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="13181" data-sentence-id="13181" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13181" data-sentence-id="13184" class="ldml-sentence">Applicable Standards of Review and Relevant Principles of Statutory Interpretation</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="13266" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13266" data-sentence-id="13267" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13267"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> review de novo an order granting summary judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13266" data-sentence-id="13325" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peopleexrelreinvmeagher,2020co56" data-prop-ids="sentence_13267"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People ex rel. Rein v. Meagher</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 56</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13267"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 19</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d 554, 559</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13266" data-sentence-id="13394" class="ldml-sentence">Hence, when reviewing such an order, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply the same legal standard as <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13266" data-sentence-id="13487" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893473201" data-vids="893473201" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13394"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">City of Longmont v. Colo. Oil & Gas Ass'n</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2016 CO 29</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13394"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 9</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893473201" data-vids="893473201" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">369 P.3d 573, 578</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13565" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="13566" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13566"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> It is apodictic that summary judgment is a drastic remedy reserved for those situations in which it is clear that the applicable legal standard has been satisfied.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="13734" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Rein,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13734"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13734"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d at 559</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="13763" class="ldml-sentence">Summary judgment is proper only if <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14050" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14050"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14050"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 19</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14050"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d at 559</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(quoting C.R.C.P. 56<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14106" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> must afford the nonmoving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> the benefit of all favorable inferences <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_14188" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="256" data-vol="486"></span> that may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14245" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14245"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14245"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 20</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14245"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d at 559</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14275" class="ldml-sentence">Conversely, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> must resolve all doubts against the moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14347" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14275"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14351" class="ldml-sentence">That's not to suggest that the nonmoving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> may simply rest on the allegations and demands in its pleadings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14463" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14351"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14467" class="ldml-sentence">To survive a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span>, the nonmoving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> must put forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13565" data-sentence-id="14610" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14467"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14613" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="14614" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14614"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="14680" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14680"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14680"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14680"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d at 559</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="14710" class="ldml-sentence">In interpreting <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> aim to ascertain and give effect to the General Assembly's intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="14807" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886440910" data-vids="886440910" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14710"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Linnebur v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 79M</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14710"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 9</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886440910" data-vids="886440910" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">476 P.3d 734, 736–37</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="14867" class="ldml-sentence">To do so, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> consider first the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span>, giving the words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="14993" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886440910" data-vids="886440910" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14867"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cite">Id.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">476 P.3d at 737</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="15015" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> look to the entire <span class="ldml-entity">statutory scheme</span> because <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are required to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all its parts, while simultaneously avoiding constructions that would either render any of its words or phrases superfluous or yield illogical or absurd results.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="15295" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895657155" data-vids="895657155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15015"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elder v. Williams</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 88</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15015"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 18</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895657155" data-vids="895657155" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">477 P.3d 694, 698</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="15351" class="ldml-sentence">If <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> is unambiguous—i.e., if it is not reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations—<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply it as written and refrain from resorting to other rules of statutory construction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14613" data-sentence-id="15543" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895657155" data-vids="895657155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15351"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_15546" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="B. The State Was Required to Prove the Voluntary Act Proscribed by the Taking Statutory Provisions (the Actus Reus)" data-content-heading-label="B. The State Was Required to Prove the Voluntary Act Proscribed by the Taking Statutory Provisions (the Actus Reus)" data-ordinal_start="2" data-specifier="B" id="heading_15546"><span data-paragraph-id="15546" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="15546" data-sentence-id="15546" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15546" data-sentence-id="15549" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">State Was Required</span> to Prove the Voluntary <span class="ldml-entity">Act</span> Proscribed by the Taking Statutory Provisions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(the <span class="ldml-entity">Actus Reus</span>)</span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="15661" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15661" data-sentence-id="15661" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15661"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> 5 Star claims, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> concedes, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> could prevail on its civil claim only if it proved that 5 Star violated at least one of the predicate taking statutory provisions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15661" data-sentence-id="15862" class="ldml-sentence">While <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had to prove any such violation only by a preponderance of the evidence <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(not beyond a reasonable doubt)</span> because this is a civil <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(not criminal)</span> case, it was nevertheless required to prove all the elements necessary for a conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15661" data-sentence-id="16110" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15862"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-110<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">cf.</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888283278" data-vids="888283278" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_16177,sentence_15862"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Itin v. Ungar</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">17 P.3d 129, 133</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that recovery of treble damages under the civil theft <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> requires <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> to prove by a preponderance of the evidence <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the elements"</span> necessary <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to establish <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s liability for the crime"</span> of theft</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15661" data-sentence-id="16401" class="ldml-sentence">The plain language in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16401"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> makes this clear: <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> may <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"bring and maintain a civil action against any person ... to recover possession or value or both ... of any wildlife taken <i class="ldml-italics">in violation of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16401"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 1 to 6</span></a></span> of this title."</i></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15661" data-sentence-id="16646" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15661" data-sentence-id="16664" class="ldml-sentence">All three taking statutory provisions reside in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16664"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 2 and 6 of title 33</span></a></span> and pronounce certain conduct unlawful.<a href="#note-fr7" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr7">7</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="16781" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16781" data-sentence-id="16781" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16781"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> As pertinent here, each taking statutory provision prohibits the unauthorized taking of protected wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16781" data-sentence-id="16893" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span>, when the rainstorm led to overflow from one of 5 Star's wastewater containment ponds, <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span>, defined <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>ake"</span> to mean <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to acquire possession of wildlife; but such term shall not include the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a motor vehicle, vessel, or train."</span><a href="#note-fr8" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr8">8</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16781" data-sentence-id="17204" class="ldml-sentence">Possession meant <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(in <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span>)</span> and continues to mean <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"either actual or constructive possession of or any control over the object referred to."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16781" data-sentence-id="17343" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17204"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(34)</span></span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16781" data-sentence-id="17359" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> see eye to eye on the applicability of these definitions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16781" data-sentence-id="17429" class="ldml-sentence">Where <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> diverge is on the elements of the predicate criminal offenses defined by the taking statutory provisions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16781" data-sentence-id="17553" class="ldml-sentence">Because this civil action is moored to those offenses, their elements are pivotal.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17635" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17635" data-sentence-id="17635" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17635"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> skirmish over two questions related to the elements of the offenses underlying this civil action: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> Do the taking <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_17767" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="257" data-vol="486"></span> statutory provisions impose strict liability or was <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> required to prove that 5 Star acted with the culpable mental state of knowingly?; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> Was <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> required to prove that 5 Star committed an unlawful voluntary act or simply a voluntary act?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17635" data-sentence-id="18027" class="ldml-sentence">Resolution of the latter is dispositive, so <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> pass no judgment on the former.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18105" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18105" data-sentence-id="18105" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18105"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> avers that the voluntary act or actus reus prong of criminal liability in Colorado does not require proof of an <i class="ldml-italics">unlawful</i> act.<a href="#note-fr9" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr9">9</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18105" data-sentence-id="18245" class="ldml-sentence">5 Star counters that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was required to prove the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18105" data-sentence-id="18363" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">5 Star.</span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18384" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18384" data-sentence-id="18384" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18384"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> Our General Assembly has declared that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a <i class="ldml-italics">voluntary act</i> or the omission to perform an act which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is physically capable of performing."</span><a href="#note-fr10" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr10">10</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18384" data-sentence-id="18631" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18384"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-502, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18384" data-sentence-id="18675" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Voluntary act"</span> means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an act performed consciously as a result of effort or determination."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18384" data-sentence-id="18768" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18675"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(9)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18384" data-sentence-id="18798" class="ldml-sentence">An <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>ct,"</span> in turn, is defined as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a bodily movement."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18384" data-sentence-id="18854" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18798"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18868" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18868" data-sentence-id="18869" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18869"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> Of course, not all voluntary conduct is subject to criminal liability.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18868" data-sentence-id="18944" class="ldml-sentence">After all, the law doesn't impose liability on the blameless.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18868" data-sentence-id="19006" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888916884" data-vids="888916884" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18944"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Marcy</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">628 P.2d 69, 73</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1981</span>)</span></a></span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">superseded by <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18944"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-3-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">as recognized in</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevlee,2020co81" data-prop-ids="sentence_18944"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Lee</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 81</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18944"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 14–16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895646552" data-vids="895646552" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">476 P.3d 351, 354–55</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18868" data-sentence-id="19186" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> proclaimed in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888916884" data-vids="888916884" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19186"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Marcy</i></span></a></span> four decades ago, a person is generally not subject to criminal liability for his conduct unless there is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an <i class="ldml-italics">unlawful</i> act <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(actus reus)</span> and a culpable mental state <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(mens rea)</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18868" data-sentence-id="19389" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895646552" data-vids="895646552" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19186"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18868" data-sentence-id="19411" class="ldml-sentence">Here, our focus is on the actus reus prong of criminal liability.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19476" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19476" data-sentence-id="19476" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19476"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> Black's Law Dictionary defines actus reus as:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19525" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="19525" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19528" class="ldml-sentence">The <i class="ldml-italics">wrongful</i> deed that comprises the physical components of a crime and that generally must be coupled with mens rea to establish criminal liability; a <i class="ldml-italics">forbidden</i> act < the actus reus for theft is the taking of or unlawful control over property without the owner's consent>.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19801" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="19801" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19804" class="ldml-sentence">The voluntary act ..., the attendant circumstances, and the social harm caused by a <i class="ldml-italics">criminal</i> act, all of which make up the physical components of a crime.—Also termed <i class="ldml-italics">deed of crime; overt act.</i></span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="19996" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19996" data-sentence-id="19996" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">Actus Reus</span>,</i> Black's Law Dictionary <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">11th ed. 2019</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(first two <span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19996"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">quoting <span class="ldml-entity">Glanville Williams</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Criminal Law: The General </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20089"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Part</i> 19</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">2d ed. 1961</span></a></span>)</span>, for the following <span class="ldml-entity">propositions</span>: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> in the event <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the specification of a crime includes a number of circumstances, all of these are essential and all must be regarded as part of the <i class="ldml-italics">actus reus"</i></span>; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he view that <i class="ldml-italics">actus reus</i> means <i class="ldml-italics">all</i> the external ingredients of the crime is not only the simplest and clearest but the one that gives the most satisfactory results."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="19996" data-sentence-id="20538" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20539" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20539" data-sentence-id="20539" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20539"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> Colorado jurisprudence has long treated the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"voluntary act"</span> required by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20539"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-502</span></a></span> synonymously with the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"actus reus"</span> of the offense and has made clear that the terms refer to the voluntary act <i class="ldml-italics">proscribed by <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span></i> defining the offense <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., the voluntary act rendered <i class="ldml-italics">unlawful</i> by <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> defining the offense)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20539" data-sentence-id="20871" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888916884" data-vids="888916884" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20871"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Marcy</i></span></a></span> is illustrative.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20539" data-sentence-id="20894" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888916884" data-vids="888916884" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20914,sentence_20871"><span class="ldml-cite">628 P.2d at 73</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">pointing out that the minimum requirements for criminal liability in Colorado are an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unlawful act"</span> or the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"actus reus"</span> and a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"culpable mental state"</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mens rea"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20539" data-sentence-id="21080" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888916884" data-vids="888916884" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21080"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Marcy</i></span></a></span> keeps good company.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20539" data-sentence-id="21110" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889662731" data-vids="889662731" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21171,sentence_21080"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Gorman v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">19 P.3d 662, 665</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">referring to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the actus reus"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an unlawful act"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891916332" data-vids="891916332" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21080"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Hendershott v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">653 P.2d 385, 390</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889939819" data-vids="889939819" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21080"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Hoskay</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">87 P.3d 194, 198</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span></span>.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_21346" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="258" data-vol="486"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21346" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21346" data-sentence-id="21347" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21347"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have made similar declarations in <span class="ldml-entity">other cases</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21346" data-sentence-id="21401" class="ldml-sentence">In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">People</span> v. Wilhelm</i> <i class="ldml-italics">,</i> after acknowledging that the General Assembly has enacted strict liability offenses, which do not contain a culpable mental state or mens rea requirement,<a href="#note-fr11" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr11">11</a> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> explained that such offenses simply require <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"proof ... that the <i class="ldml-italics">prohibited conduct</i> was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘the product of conscious mental activity involving effort or determination.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21346" data-sentence-id="21749" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888739733" data-vids="888739733" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21401"><span class="ldml-cite">676 P.2d 702, 706</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevrostad,669p2d126,128-30colo1983enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_21401"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Rostad</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">669 P.2d 126, 129</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21346" data-sentence-id="21858" class="ldml-sentence">Similarly, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevrostad,669p2d126,128-30colo1983enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_21858"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Rostad</i></span></a></span> <i class="ldml-italics">,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> said that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the minimal requirement for a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘strict liability’</span> offense is proof that the <i class="ldml-italics">proscribed conduct</i> was performed voluntarily."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21346" data-sentence-id="22017" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevrostad,669p2d126,128-30colo1983enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_21858"><span class="ldml-cite">669 P.2d at 129</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21346" data-sentence-id="22051" class="ldml-sentence">And in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">People</span> v. Caddy</i> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> noted that it was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"well settled that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> may make a <i class="ldml-italics">prohibited act</i> a crime, irrespective of the elements of intent or scienter, when public policy so requires."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21346" data-sentence-id="22252" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889418610" data-vids="889418610" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22051"><span class="ldml-cite">189 Colo. 353</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">540 P.2d 1089, 1090</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1975</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22311" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22311" data-sentence-id="22311" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22311"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> Not surprisingly, the Colorado Model Criminal Jury Instructions have followed suit.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22311" data-sentence-id="22399" class="ldml-sentence">COLJI-Crim.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22311" data-sentence-id="22411" class="ldml-sentence">G1:01 recommends instructing jurors in all but strict liability <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> as follows: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"A crime is committed when <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> has committed a voluntary act <i class="ldml-italics">prohibited by law</i> , together with a culpable state of mind."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22311" data-sentence-id="22625" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22642" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="22642" data-sentence-id="22643" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22643"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> Therefore, here, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> could not prevail unless it proved that 5 Star committed the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions.<a href="#note-fr12" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr12">12</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22642" data-sentence-id="22796" class="ldml-sentence">Though <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> disputes this point and argues that <i class="ldml-italics">any</i> voluntary act—not necessarily the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions—would have sufficed, it ultimately concedes in its reply brief that it was required to prove that 5 Star killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish without authorization.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22642" data-sentence-id="23143" class="ldml-sentence">But that's precisely the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., the actus reus)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22642" data-sentence-id="23252" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> reluctantly acknowledges, what the taking statutory provisions proscribe is any voluntary act that kills or otherwise acquires possession of or control over certain wildlife without authorization.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23461" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23461" data-sentence-id="23461" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23461"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> So, did <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> present proof of the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23461" data-sentence-id="23565" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> turn to that question next.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-value="C. The District Court Erred in Granting the State's Motion for Summary Judgment" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_23595" data-ordinal_end="3" data-types="motion_summary_judgment" data-content-heading-label="C. The District Court Erred in Granting the State's Motion for Summary Judgment" data-ordinal_start="3" data-confidences="medium" data-specifier="C" id="heading_23595"><span data-paragraph-id="23595" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="23595" data-sentence-id="23595" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23595" data-sentence-id="23598" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The District Court</span> Erred in Granting <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">Motion for Summary Judgment</span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="23674" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23674" data-sentence-id="23674" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23674"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> presented no evidence that 5 Star performed a voluntary act by which it killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish without authorization.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23674" data-sentence-id="23874" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to satisfy the voluntary act or actus reus requirement of the taking statutory provisions.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23994" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23994" data-sentence-id="23995" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23995"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> The voluntary act <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleged 5 Star performed was the lawful, years-long operation of wastewater containment ponds.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23994" data-sentence-id="24122" class="ldml-sentence">But 5 Star's lawful, longstanding operation of wastewater containment ponds was not proscribed by the taking statutory provisions because such operation didn't kill or otherwise acquire possession of or control over the fish.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24347" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24347" data-sentence-id="24347" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24347"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> Significantly, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s complaint didn't even allege that 5 Star's lawful, longstanding operation of wastewater containment ponds killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24347" data-sentence-id="24553" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span>'s theory was that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"discharge"</span> of a mixture of wastewater and rainwater from one of 5 Star's containment ponds killed the fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24347" data-sentence-id="24694" class="ldml-sentence">That discharge, however, was triggered by the rainstorm, which was certainly not an act performed by 5 Star, much less an act 5 Star undertook <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"consciously as a result of effort or determination."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24347" data-sentence-id="24891" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24694"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(9)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24905" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="24905" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24905"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span>'s attempt to analogize 5 Star's lawful, long-term operation of wastewater containment ponds to the situation <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> dealt with in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">People</span> v. Garcia</i> misses the mark.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="25079" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891612926" data-vids="891612926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24905"><span class="ldml-cite">189 Colo. 347</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">541 P.2d 687</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1975</span>)</span></a></span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">superseded by <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24905"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-4-105, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">as recognized in</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_25182" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="259" data-vol="486"></span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889756166" data-vids="889756166" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24905"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Copeland v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2 P.3d 1283, 1285</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="25235" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, <i class="ldml-italics">Garcia</i> actually undercuts <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s position.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="25291" class="ldml-sentence">There, <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> lodged a constitutional challenge against the fourth degree arson <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, which, at the time, made it unlawful for anyone to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"start<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> or maintain<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> a fire on ... his own property or that of another"</span> when doing so <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"place<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span> any building or occupied structure of another in danger of damage."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="25606" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891612926" data-vids="891612926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25291"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 688</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(quoting <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25291"><span class="ldml-cite">18-4-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1973</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.<a href="#note-fr13" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr13">13</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="25664" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The defendant</span> argued, among other things, that <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> reached constitutionally protected conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="25767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891612926" data-vids="891612926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25664"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 689</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="25779" class="ldml-sentence">In rejecting the claim, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> relied on <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25779"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-502</span></a></span>'s general prerequisites for criminal liability and held that <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> was required to prove that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> had performed the voluntary act proscribed by <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="26010" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891612926" data-vids="891612926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25779"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="26014" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reasoned that a person could not be found guilty if the fire was started <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"by events beyond <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[his]</span> control."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24905" data-sentence-id="26124" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891612926" data-vids="891612926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26014"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26127" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="26127" data-sentence-id="26128" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26128"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> Our holding today jibes with <i class="ldml-italics">Garcia</i> <i class="ldml-italics">.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26127" data-sentence-id="26170" class="ldml-sentence">Just as <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> can't be found guilty of fourth degree arson if the fire was started by events beyond his control, <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> can't be found guilty of taking protected wildlife without authorization under one of the taking statutory provisions if the taking was accomplished by events beyond his control.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26127" data-sentence-id="26480" class="ldml-sentence">Regardless of whether the culprit was fire or water, criminal liability may not attach in either scenario if <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> did not perform the voluntary act proscribed by <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> defining the offense.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26127" data-sentence-id="26685" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, although <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> seeks refuge in <i class="ldml-italics">Garcia</i> <i class="ldml-italics">,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> perceive nothing in <i class="ldml-italics">Garcia</i> that can reasonably be read as relieving <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> of its burden to prove that 5 Star performed a voluntary act <i class="ldml-italics">by which it killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish without authorization.</i></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26979" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="26979" data-sentence-id="26980" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26980"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> The flaw in <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s analytical <span class="ldml-entity">approach in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span></span> was that it seemed to analyze <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> through the prism of a negligence tort.<a href="#note-fr14" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr14">14</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26979" data-sentence-id="27130" class="ldml-sentence">But tort principles can't be shoehorned into <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27130"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> because that statutory provision doesn't authorize <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> to recover by proving a civil negligence claim.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26979" data-sentence-id="27304" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> observed above, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27304"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> requires proof establishing a criminal offense pursuant to one of the taking statutory provisions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26979" data-sentence-id="27453" class="ldml-sentence">And the voluntary act or actus reus required by each such offense <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., the voluntary act proscribed)</span> is killing or otherwise acquiring possession of or control over certain wildlife without authorization.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26979" data-sentence-id="27660" class="ldml-sentence">Contrary to <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s suggestion, that voluntary act or actus reus requirement can't be satisfied by proof of <i class="ldml-italics">any</i> voluntary act without regard to whether such act killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish without authorization.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27915" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="27915" data-sentence-id="27916" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27916"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> In short, to borrow from the old idiom, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> brought a negligence-tort knife to an actus-reus gun fight and, as this opinion demonstrates, it could not withstand 5 Star's summary-judgment salvo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27915" data-sentence-id="28120" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> didn't even allege in its complaint that 5 Star's sole voluntary act—the lawful, years-long operation of wastewater containment ponds—killed or otherwise acquired possession of or control over the fish without authorization, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred in granting <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span>.<a href="#note-fr15" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr15">15</a></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_28441" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="260" data-vol="486"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28441" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="28441" data-sentence-id="28442" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28442"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> Our work isn't done yet, though, because the denial of 5 Star's <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motion for summary judgment</span> is also before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28441" data-sentence-id="28563" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> explore that aspect of 5 Star's appeal below.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-value="D. The District Court Also Erred in Denying 5 Star's Motion for Summary Judgment" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_28611" data-ordinal_end="4" data-types="motion_summary_judgment" data-content-heading-label="D. The District Court Also Erred in Denying 5 Star's Motion for Summary Judgment" data-ordinal_start="4" data-confidences="medium" data-specifier="D" id="heading_28611"><span data-paragraph-id="28611" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="28611" data-sentence-id="28611" class="ldml-sentence">D.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28611" data-sentence-id="28614" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The District Court</span> Also Erred in Denying 5 Star's <span class="ldml-entity">Motion for Summary Judgment</span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="28691" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="28691" data-sentence-id="28692" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28692"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> An order denying a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span> is generally not appealable because it doesn't terminate the litigation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28691" data-sentence-id="28816" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:glennonheights,incvcentralbanktrustno81sa347658p2d872feb14,1983" data-prop-ids="sentence_28692"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Glennon Heights, Inc. v. Cent.</i> <i class="ldml-italics">Bank & Tr.</i></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">658 P.2d 872, 875</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28691" data-sentence-id="28891" class="ldml-sentence">However, as the division astutely recognized, where <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> file <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motions for summary judgment</span> on the issue of liability and <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> grants one, denies the other, and then resolves the issue of damages at a bench trial, the judgment is final and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> may review the order denying summary judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28691" data-sentence-id="29207" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28891"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dep't of</span> </i><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Nat. Res.,</i> ¶ 36</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895529653" data-vids="895529653" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28891"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Yaffe Cos., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">499 F.3d 1182, 1184</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="29324" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="29324" data-sentence-id="29324" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29324"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span> In its <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span>, 5 Star relied on the lack of any argument or evidence by <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> regarding the voluntary act or actus reus required by the taking statutory provisions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29324" data-sentence-id="29518" class="ldml-sentence">As such, it was incumbent on <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> to come forward with evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact vis-à-vis that requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29324" data-sentence-id="29679" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Rein,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29679"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 20</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29679"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d at 559</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29324" data-sentence-id="29708" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to do so, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred in denying 5 Star's motion and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> now direct the entry of judgment against <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> and in favor of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">5 Star.</span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29324" data-sentence-id="29877" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreestateofscott,119p3d511,515-16coloapp2004" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_29945,sentence_29708"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re Estate of Scott</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">119 P.3d 511, 515–16</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">directing entry of judgment for <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> whose <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span> was denied by <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> because no factual issue remained</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886353755" data-vids="886353755" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29708"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Udis v. Universal Commc'ns Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">56 P.3d 1177, 1183</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892894187" data-vids="892894187" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30231,sentence_29708"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Witcher v. Canon City</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">716 P.2d 445, 456–57</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span>'s failure to challenge evidence presented in support of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> waives any such challenge on appeal</span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_30400" data-ordinal_end="3" data-types="conclusion" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-ordinal_start="3" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="III" id="heading_30400"><span data-paragraph-id="30400" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="30400" data-sentence-id="30400" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30400" data-sentence-id="30405" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="30415" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="30415" data-sentence-id="30415" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30415"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> affirm the division's judgment, albeit on narrower grounds.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30415" data-sentence-id="30482" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> remand with instructions to return <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> to enter judgment against <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> and in 5 Star's favor.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30613" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (MÁRQUEZ)"><span data-paragraph-id="30613" data-sentence-id="30613" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MÁRQUEZ</span></span> concurs in the judgment only</span>.</span></span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="30658" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Dissenting,concurring Opinion (HOOD, MÁRQUEZ)"><span data-paragraph-id="30658" data-sentence-id="30658" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissents</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">HART</span> and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">BERKENKOTTER</span> join in the dissent</span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30743" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="30743" data-sentence-id="30743" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MÁRQUEZ</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">concurring in the judgment only</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30792" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="30792" data-sentence-id="30792" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30792"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> seeks to hold <span class="ldml-entity">5 Star Feedlot, Inc.</span> liable for the effects of an extreme, fifty-year rainstorm event that caused 5 Star's wastewater containment ponds to overflow and allegedly resulted in the death of approximately 15,000 fish several miles away.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30792" data-sentence-id="31053" class="ldml-sentence">The question before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> is whether 5 Star may be held liable for this result, not as a matter of tort <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(say, as a proximate and foreseeable result of the negligent construction or maintenance of the containment ponds)</span>, but in violation of statutory provisions that make it unlawful to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30792" data-sentence-id="31353" class="ldml-sentence">I agree with the plurality that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to plead <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> that could survive 5 Star's <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span>, but I do not join its reasoning.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30792" data-sentence-id="31508" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, I conclude that, as a matter of plain language and viewing the wildlife code as a whole, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> of wildlife requires knowing or intentional conduct directed at wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30792" data-sentence-id="31693" class="ldml-sentence">Here, because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to allege knowing or intentional conduct by 5 Star amounting to a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> of wildlife, its case cannot survive summary judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30792" data-sentence-id="31854" class="ldml-sentence">Because I agree that <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> should be remanded to <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> for entry of summary judgment in favor of 5 Star, but do not join the rationale of the plurality opinion, I respectfully concur in the judgment only.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_32074" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="I. Principles of Statutory Interpretation" data-content-heading-label="I. Principles of Statutory Interpretation" data-ordinal_start="1" data-specifier="I" id="heading_32074"><span data-paragraph-id="32074" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="32074" data-sentence-id="32074" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32074" data-sentence-id="32077" class="ldml-sentence">Principles of Statutory Interpretation</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="32115" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32115" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32115"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span> In interpreting <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>, our role is to ascertain and give effect to <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_32207" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="261" data-vol="486"></span> intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32216" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevharrison,2020co57" data-prop-ids="sentence_32115"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Harrison</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 57</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32115"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891592534" data-vids="891592534" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d 16, 20</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32276" class="ldml-sentence">To this end, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> first look to the language of <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span>, giving terms their plain and ordinary meaning.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32380" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891592534" data-vids="891592534" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32276"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32384" class="ldml-sentence">If a word has a recognized common law meaning and history, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> may also look to that history to determine the meaning of ambiguous terms.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:nortonvgilmanno96sc705949p2d565nov24,1997" data-prop-ids="sentence_32384"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Norton v. Gilman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">949 P.2d 565, 567</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1997</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887279576" data-vids="887279576" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32384"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Allen v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">175 Colo. 113</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">485 P.2d 886, 887–88</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1971</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32638" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are also <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"required to read the words and phrases in <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> in context."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32716" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevharrison,2020co57" data-prop-ids="sentence_32638"><span class="ldml-refname">Harrison</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32638"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 17</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891592534" data-vids="891592534" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d at 20</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32748" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, a statutory term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"appearing in a series should be understood ... to have a meaning commensurate with or in the general nature of the things with which it has been grouped."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32927" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893254575" data-vids="893254575" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32748"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Opana</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 CO 56</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32748"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 14</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:395p3d757,761"><span class="ldml-cite">395 P.3d 757, 761</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="32981" class="ldml-sentence">And, when interpreting statutory provisions that are part of a broader legislative scheme, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> endeavor to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read that scheme as a whole, giving consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32115" data-sentence-id="33190" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32981"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Thompson v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 72</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32981"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">471 P.3d 1045, 1051</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_33248" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="II. &quot;Take&quot; Requires Knowing or Intentional Conduct" data-content-heading-label="II. &quot;Take&quot; Requires Knowing or Intentional Conduct" data-ordinal_start="2" data-specifier="II" id="heading_33248"><span data-paragraph-id="33248" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="33248" data-sentence-id="33248" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33248" data-sentence-id="33252" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Take"</span> Requires Knowing or Intentional Conduct</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="33298" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="33298" data-sentence-id="33298" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶46 Section 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, authorizes the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife</span> to bring a civil action to recover possession and/or value of any wildlife <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taken in violation of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33298"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 1 to 6</span></a></span> of this title."</span><a href="#note-fr_1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="33298" data-sentence-id="33523" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleged violations of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">sections 33-2-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span>, 33-2-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span>, and 33-6-109<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, which make it unlawful to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> certain wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33298" data-sentence-id="33679" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33679"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 33-6-109<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> makes it unlawful for anyone to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt, take, or have in such person's possession"</span> any wildlife that is the property of <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>, except as permitted under the wildlife code or by rule or regulation of the <span class="ldml-entity">Parks and Wildlife Commission</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33298" data-sentence-id="33936" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33936"><span class="ldml-cite">Sections 33-2-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33936"><span class="ldml-cite">33-2-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span></span></span> similarly make it unlawful to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> nongame or threatened wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33298" data-sentence-id="34042" class="ldml-sentence">At the time of 5 Star's alleged offense, the wildlife code defined <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> to mean <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to acquire possession of wildlife; but such term shall not include the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a motor vehicle, vessel, or train."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="33298" data-sentence-id="34278" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34042"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34308" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34308" data-sentence-id="34308" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34308"><span class="ldml-cite">¶47</span></a></span> As <span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity">Scalia</span></span> once observed, in the context of wildlife, the term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"as old as the law itself,"</span> and means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to reduce those animals, by killing or capturing, to human control."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="34308" data-sentence-id="34500" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889777620" data-vids="889777620" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_34641,sentence_34308"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">515 U.S. 687, 717</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">115 S.Ct. 2407</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">132 L.Ed.2d 597</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Scalia, J., dissenting)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">tracing the right to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> wild animals back to ancient Roman law</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889777620" data-vids="889777620" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_34724,sentence_34308"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">citing, <i class="ldml-italics">inter alia,</i> 2 <span class="ldml-entity">William Blackstone</span>, Commentaries *411 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1766</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Every man ... has an equal right of pursuing and taking to his own use all such creatures as are <i class="ldml-italics">ferae naturae."</i></span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34308" data-sentence-id="34909" class="ldml-sentence">Under the traditional understanding of the term, an individual <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"takes"</span> a wild animal through knowing or intentional conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34308" data-sentence-id="35034" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891533436" data-vids="891533436" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_35114,sentence_34909"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">801 F.3d 477, 489</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">5th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"One does not reduce an animal to human control accidentally or by omission; <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> does so affirmatively."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="34308" data-sentence-id="35218" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35219" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="35219" data-sentence-id="35219" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35219"><span class="ldml-cite">¶48</span></a></span> Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> with respect to wildlife has long been associated with purposeful activities like hunting, fishing, trapping, and the like.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35219" data-sentence-id="35373" class="ldml-sentence">Colorado's wildlife code reflects this traditional understanding.<a href="#note-fr_2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35219" data-sentence-id="35439" class="ldml-sentence">Prior to <span class="ldml-entity">1994</span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt"</span> were used interchangeably; the combined definition included exceptions for watching or photographing wildlife and for the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a car or train:<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_35655" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="262" data-vol="486"></span></span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_35655" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="35656" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Take or hunt</i> means to pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, possess, capture, collect, attract, stalk, or lie in wait or to attempt any of the foregoing for the purpose of taking wildlife, whether or not such wildlife is then or subsequently taken, but such terms shall not include stalking, attracting, or searching for or lying in wait for wildlife by an unarmed person solely for the purpose of watching wildlife or taking pictures thereof or accidental wounding or killing by a motor vehicle, locomotive, or train.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="36170" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="36170" data-sentence-id="36171" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span></span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="36218" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36218" data-sentence-id="36218" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36218"><span class="ldml-cite">¶49</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Amendments</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">1994</span> split apart the definitions of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt"</span> but the concepts remained linked.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36218" data-sentence-id="36324" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36218"><span class="ldml-cite">ch. 269, sec. 1</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36218"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36218"><span class="ldml-cite">1994 Colo. Sess. Laws 1574, 1575-77</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36218" data-sentence-id="36394" class="ldml-sentence">The separate, but broader, definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt"</span> <i class="ldml-italics">includes</i> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> and lists a variety of purposeful activities, all of which inherently require knowing conduct directed at wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36218" data-sentence-id="36574" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_36607,sentence_36394"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(25.5)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt"</span> to mean <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"pursue, attract, stalk, lie in wait for, or attempt to shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or <i class="ldml-italics">take</i> wildlife"</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36218" data-sentence-id="36768" class="ldml-sentence">This definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt"</span> carried over and incorporated the earlier exception for the viewing or photographing of wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36218" data-sentence-id="36892" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36768"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36768"><span class="ldml-cite">1994 Colo. Sess. Laws</span> <span class="ldml-cite">at 1575</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="36927" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36927" data-sentence-id="36927" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36927"><span class="ldml-cite">¶50</span></a></span> The narrower term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take,"</span> as amended by <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity">1994</span> <span class="ldml-entity">amendments</span></span> and at the time of the <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span> rainstorm event here, was more specifically defined as <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><i class="ldml-italics">"to acquire possession of</i> wildlife."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="36927" data-sentence-id="37111" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36927"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.<a href="#note-fr_3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_3">3</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="36927" data-sentence-id="37159" class="ldml-sentence">This definition retained the pre-<span class="ldml-entity">1994</span> general exception for the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"accidental wounding or killing"</span> of wildlife, expanding it to refer to accidents involving a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"motor vehicle, <i class="ldml-italics">vessel,</i> or train."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="36927" data-sentence-id="37351" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37159"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_37398,sentence_37159"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(49)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"vessel"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation of persons or property on water"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="37545" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="37545" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37545"><span class="ldml-cite">¶51</span></a></span> For purposes of the wildlife code, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possession"</span> is defined as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"either actual or constructive possession of or any control over the object referred to."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="37701" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37545"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(34)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="37717" class="ldml-sentence">Notably, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possession"</span> of wildlife is directly linked to hunting or related purposeful activities directed at wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="37836" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37836"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 33-6-108</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>, establishes that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the possession of wildlife shall be prima facie evidence that the person having such possession is engaged or has been engaged in hunting, fishing, or trapping."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="38049" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38049"><span class="ldml-cite">criminal code</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possession"</span> can be a crime only if <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"aware of his physical possession or control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate it."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="38250" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38049"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(9)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="38280" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, Colorado law does not criminalize <i class="ldml-italics">unknowing</i> possession.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37545" data-sentence-id="38352" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889173054" data-vids="889173054" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38280"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Ceja</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">904 P.2d 1308, 1310</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="38401" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="38401" data-sentence-id="38401" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38401"><span class="ldml-cite">¶52</span></a></span> The statutory taking provisions are silent as to the requisite mens rea that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> must prove.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38401" data-sentence-id="38504" class="ldml-sentence">However, such <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legislative silence does not always indicate a strict liability offense because <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> may imply a culpable mental state."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="38401" data-sentence-id="38647" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887825823" data-vids="887825823" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38504"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Manzo</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">144 P.3d 551, 556</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38401" data-sentence-id="38696" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, our <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span> has made clear that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>lthough no culpable mental state is expressly designated in <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> defining an offense, <i class="ldml-italics">a culpable mental state may nevertheless be required for the commission of that offense,</i> or with respect to some or all of the material elements thereof, <i class="ldml-italics">if the proscribed conduct necessarily involves such a culpable mental state."</i></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="38401" data-sentence-id="39076" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38696"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-503<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39122" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39122" data-sentence-id="39122" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39122"><span class="ldml-cite">¶53</span></a></span> Given the wildlife code's longstanding treatment of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> as synonymous with hunting and related purposeful activities, <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> of taking, by its very nature, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"necessarily involves"</span> knowing or intentional conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39122" data-sentence-id="39341" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39122"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><a href="#note-fr_4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_4">4</a> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">cf.</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890697779" data-vids="890697779" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39407,sentence_39122"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Gordon</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">160 P.3d 284, 289</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_39420" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="263" data-vol="486"></span> <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39122"><span class="ldml-cite">33-6-117<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, requires that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> <i class="ldml-italics">knowingly</i> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take and abandon"</span> wildlife</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39522" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39522" data-sentence-id="39522" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39522"><span class="ldml-cite">¶54</span></a></span> This understanding of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> is confirmed by a multitude of other provisions throughout <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39522"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 1 through 6 of Title 33</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39522" data-sentence-id="39648" class="ldml-sentence">Viewed as a whole, the wildlife code is replete with provisions joining the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> with <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt"</span> or similar, purposeful acts directed at wildlife, signaling that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> likewise requires knowing or intentional conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39522" data-sentence-id="39870" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39911,sentence_39648"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-120<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">making it unlawful <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to fish, trap, hunt, or take any wildlife outside of the season"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_40025,sentence_39648"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-123, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">making it unlawful to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt or take any wildlife"</span> while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_40173,sentence_39648"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-124<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">making it unlawful <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to hunt, take, or harass wildlife from or with a motor vehicle"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_40289,sentence_39648"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-124<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">making it unlawful to spot or locate wildlife from an aircraft <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to pursue, hunt, or take game"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_40407,sentence_39648"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-117<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(I)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">making it an offense <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to hunt or take ... wildlife and detach or remove, with the intent to abandon the carcass or body, only the head, hide, claw, teeth, antlers, horns, internal organs, or feathers of any or all of such parts"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39522" data-sentence-id="40638" class="ldml-sentence">And certain wildlife code offenses make sense only if <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> requires knowing conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39522" data-sentence-id="40725" class="ldml-sentence">Logically, persons must <i class="ldml-italics">know</i> <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> wildlife when engaging in such activity unlawfully in excess of a bag limit, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40725"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1.5)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> out of season, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40725"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-120<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> or without wearing proper fluorescent pink or orange safety garments, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-121<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="41009" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="41009" data-sentence-id="41009" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41009"><span class="ldml-cite">¶55</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> argues that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> cannot require that conduct be knowing because if it did, there would be no need for the exception for the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"accidental wounding or killing of wildlife"</span> in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41009"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41009" data-sentence-id="41219" class="ldml-sentence">I disagree.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41009" data-sentence-id="41231" class="ldml-sentence">The wounding or killing of wildlife with a car, boat, or train can be knowing or intentional and yet still be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"accidental"</span> under the everyday meaning of that term.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41009" data-sentence-id="41395" class="ldml-sentence">Anyone who has driven on a rural Colorado highway has likely faced an errant deer or other wildlife that has suddenly leapt onto the roadway.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41009" data-sentence-id="41537" class="ldml-sentence">In such situations, a driver may understandably choose to strike the wildlife rather than veer into oncoming traffic or drive over a cliff.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41009" data-sentence-id="41677" class="ldml-sentence">The same goes for an engineer of a train or the pilot of a watercraft who is unable to safely stop or steer to avoid striking wildlife without causing injury to herself or other <span class="ldml-entity">people</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41009" data-sentence-id="41863" class="ldml-sentence">In such scenarios, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> is knowing conduct—and yet the General Assembly has recognized that such takings are nonetheless <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"accidental"</span> for which liability should not be imposed.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="42047" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42047" data-sentence-id="42047" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42047"><span class="ldml-cite">¶56</span></a></span> Similarly, I would decline to infer that the express limitation in <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42047"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-2-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42047"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-2-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span></span></span> making it unlawful for a common carrier to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knowingly"</span> transport wildlife reflects <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s determination that for all other persons, no culpable mental state is required at all.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42047" data-sentence-id="42350" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, those provisions—which make it unlawful to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship"</span> wildlife—concern acts that, like hunting, fishing, and trapping, inherently require knowing conduct.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_42587" data-ordinal_end="3" data-value="III. The State Failed to Allege that 5 Star Acted Knowingly or Intentionally" data-content-heading-label="III. The State Failed to Allege that 5 Star Acted Knowingly or Intentionally" data-ordinal_start="3" data-specifier="III" id="heading_42587"><span data-paragraph-id="42587" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="42587" data-sentence-id="42587" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42587" data-sentence-id="42592" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">State Failed</span> to Allege that 5 Star Acted Knowingly or Intentionally</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="42663" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42663" data-sentence-id="42663" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42663"><span class="ldml-cite">¶57</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span>'s theory throughout this litigation has been that the discharge from 5 Star's wastewater containment ponds following the rainstorm migrated into the waterways and ultimately resulted in the death of fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42663" data-sentence-id="42882" class="ldml-sentence">But as discussed above, the wildlife code is concerned with hunting, fishing, trapping, and related purposeful activities directed at wildlife; it does not purport to address industrial pollution or toxic torts.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42663" data-sentence-id="43094" class="ldml-sentence">And even if it did, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> has not alleged that 5 Star constructed or maintained its wastewater containment ponds in violation of any <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> or regulation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42663" data-sentence-id="43254" class="ldml-sentence">To be clear, the unfortunate events that led to the death of wildlife here is surely a loss to Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42663" data-sentence-id="43359" class="ldml-sentence">Certainly, the discharge of wastewater under <span class="ldml-entity">these circumstances</span> might even be deemed tortious under a different <span class="ldml-entity">statutory scheme</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42663" data-sentence-id="43490" class="ldml-sentence">But it is simply not the type of knowing or intentional conduct directed at wildlife that is contemplated by the taking <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> at issue here.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="IV. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_43633" data-ordinal_end="4" data-types="conclusion" data-content-heading-label="IV. Conclusion" data-ordinal_start="4" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="IV" id="heading_43633"><span data-paragraph-id="43633" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="43633" data-sentence-id="43633" class="ldml-sentence">IV.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43633" data-sentence-id="43637" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="43647" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="43647" data-sentence-id="43647" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43647"><span class="ldml-cite">¶58</span></a></span> For the foregoing reasons, because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to allege knowing or intentional conduct by 5 Star amounting to a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> of <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_43781" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="264" data-vol="486"></span> wildlife, its case cannot survive summary judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43647" data-sentence-id="43834" class="ldml-sentence">Although I arrive at my conclusion under different reasoning than the plurality, I nevertheless agree that <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> should be remanded to <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> for entry of summary judgment in favor of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">5 Star.</span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="43647" data-sentence-id="44041" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, I respectfully concur in the judgment only.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="44095" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Dissenting Opinion (HOOD)"><span data-paragraph-id="44095" data-sentence-id="44095" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissenting</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="44120" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="44120" data-sentence-id="44120" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44120"><span class="ldml-cite">¶59</span></a></span> The plurality holds that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to present evidence of a voluntary but prohibited act because <span class="ldml-entity">5 Star Feedlot, Inc.</span>'s <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-localname">5 Star</span>"</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"operation of wastewater containment ponds ... didn't kill ... fish."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="44120" data-sentence-id="44332" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44120"><span class="ldml-cite">Plur. op. ¶ 34</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44120" data-sentence-id="44348" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, the plurality attributes the deaths to the rain, which was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"beyond <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[5 Star's]</span> control."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="44120" data-sentence-id="44445" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44348"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 37</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="44457" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="44457" data-sentence-id="44457" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44457"><span class="ldml-cite">¶60</span></a></span> But the plurality's concern implicates causation, not voluntariness.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44457" data-sentence-id="44530" class="ldml-sentence">When a crime prohibits a result—like causing fish to die—proving the actus reus requires evidence of a voluntary act that actually and proximately caused the forbidden result.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44457" data-sentence-id="44706" class="ldml-sentence">So, the fact that 5 Star exerted conscious effort to store feces-contaminated water in ponds was sufficient if it actually and proximately caused the deaths.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="44863" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="44863" data-sentence-id="44863" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44863"><span class="ldml-cite">¶61</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> found that no genuine dispute existed over whether 5 Star's conduct was an actual cause of the deaths.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44863" data-sentence-id="44989" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, 5 Star performed the actus reus of the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> if it was also foreseeable that the practice of storing wastewater in ponds would combine with a rainstorm to kill fish.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="45168" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="45168" data-sentence-id="45168" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45168"><span class="ldml-cite">¶62</span></a></span> Because I would reverse on actus reus, I also address whether the division correctly held that the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> imply a mens rea of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knowingly."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="45168" data-sentence-id="45318" class="ldml-sentence">On this second issue, I would also reverse the division.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45168" data-sentence-id="45375" class="ldml-sentence">The text of the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> reveals that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> was right to read them as imposing strict liability.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="45480" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="45480" data-sentence-id="45480" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45480"><span class="ldml-cite">¶63</span></a></span> Accordingly, I would remand <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> to address 5 Star's unresolved causation arguments.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_45597" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="I. Actus Reus" data-content-heading-label="I. Actus Reus" data-ordinal_start="1" data-specifier="I" id="heading_45597"><span data-paragraph-id="45597" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="45597" data-sentence-id="45597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><b class="ldml-bold">I. Actus Reus</b></span></span></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="45610" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="45610" data-sentence-id="45610" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45610"><span class="ldml-cite">¶64</span></a></span> The plurality correctly defines <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"actus reus"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he wrongful deed that comprises the physical components of a crime,"</span> including <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the social harm caused."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="45610" data-sentence-id="45771" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45610"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 27</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis omitted</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(quoting <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">Actus Reus</span>,</i> Black's Law Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45610"><span class="ldml-cite">11th ed. 2019</span></a></span>)</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45610" data-sentence-id="45864" class="ldml-sentence">I also agree that a crime's actus reus includes <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he minimum requirement"</span> of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a voluntary act,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45864"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 25</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis omitted</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-502, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>, which is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a bodily movement"</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"performed consciously as a result of effort,"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45864"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45864"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(9)</span></span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="46156" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="46156" data-sentence-id="46156" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46156"><span class="ldml-cite">¶65</span></a></span> Yet the plurality neglects to mention that, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>lthough a voluntary act is an absolute requirement for criminal liability, it does not follow that every act up to the moment that the harm is caused must be voluntary."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="46156" data-sentence-id="46378" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46156"><span class="ldml-refname">1 Wayne R. LaFave, <i class="ldml-italics">Substantive Criminal Law</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 6.1<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3d ed. 2020)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">accord</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892730632" data-vids="892730632" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_46513,sentence_46156"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State v. Burrell</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">135 N.H. 715</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">609 A.2d 751, 753</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> there's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"no support"</span> for the rule that <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> must <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"prove that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s <i class="ldml-italics">last</i> act was voluntary"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46156" data-sentence-id="46635" class="ldml-sentence">Take the example of a person subject to fainting spells who passes out while driving and kills a pedestrian.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46156" data-sentence-id="46744" class="ldml-sentence">The driver's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"voluntary act consists of driving the car,"</span> even though the bodily movements immediately before the crash were involuntary.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46156" data-sentence-id="46882" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46744"><span class="ldml-refname">LaFave</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cite">supra</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 6.1<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893582172" data-vids="893582172" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_46967,sentence_46744"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State v. Newman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">353 Or. 632</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">302 P.3d 435, 442</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2013</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"If the driver ... loses consciousness with the result that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> runs over a pedestrian, ... a <i class="ldml-italics">prior</i> voluntary act, such as <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> of driving, ... may ... be regarded as sufficient<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> ...."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span> </span><span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_47212,sentence_46744"><span class="ldml-cite">Model Penal Code § 2.01</span></a></span> cmt.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46744"><span class="ldml-refname">Am. L. Inst., Tentative Draft</span> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">1955</span>)</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="47257" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="47257" data-sentence-id="47257" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47257"><span class="ldml-cite">¶66</span></a></span> The plurality accepts that storing feces-contaminated water in ponds was a voluntary act but dismisses the practice as irrelevant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47257" data-sentence-id="47392" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47257"><span class="ldml-cite">Plur. op. ¶ 34</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47257" data-sentence-id="47408" class="ldml-sentence">The take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> prohibit voluntary acts that kill fish, and 5 Star's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"operation of wastewater containment ponds,"</span> voluntary as it was, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"didn't kill ... fish."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="47257" data-sentence-id="47569" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47408"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="47257" data-sentence-id="47573" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, the spill <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"was triggered by the rainstorm, which was certainly not ... an act 5 Star undertook <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘consciously as a result of effort or determination.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="47257" data-sentence-id="47733" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47573"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 35</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47573"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(9)</span></span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="47770" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="47770" data-sentence-id="47770" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47770"><span class="ldml-cite">¶67</span></a></span> But, of course, storing the wastewater in manure ponds <i class="ldml-italics">did</i> kill fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47770" data-sentence-id="47844" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> found that rain alone wouldn't have been a problem.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47770" data-sentence-id="47915" class="ldml-sentence">It was the toxic <i class="ldml-italics">combination</i> of feces and rainwater that wreaked havoc.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_47987" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="265" data-vol="486"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="47987" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="47987" data-sentence-id="47988" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the storm and the containment ponds were both necessary ingredients for the deaths of the fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47987" data-sentence-id="48090" class="ldml-sentence">As such, each was a but-for or actual cause of the accidental killings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47987" data-sentence-id="48162" class="ldml-sentence">Without the storage of the wastewater in the containment ponds, the spill would not have occurred.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="48260" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="48260" data-sentence-id="48260" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48260"><span class="ldml-cite">¶68</span></a></span> While the plurality's interest in the legal significance of the rain is understandable, it has conflated the voluntary act requirement with an entirely different aspect of actus reus: causation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48260" data-sentence-id="48459" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, the plurality's argument that the voluntary act of storing wastewater in manure ponds didn't kill the fish boils down to the idea that this practice didn't <i class="ldml-italics">cause</i> the fish to die.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="48645" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="48645" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48645"><span class="ldml-cite">¶69</span></a></span> Causation is a part of a crime's actus reus whenever the General Assembly prohibits a specific result.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="48752" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_48811,sentence_48645"><span class="ldml-refname">1 Paul H. Robinson, <i class="ldml-italics">Criminal Law Defenses</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 88</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Every <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48645"><span class="ldml-cite">criminal code</span></a></span> contains offenses defined to include a <i class="ldml-italics">result</i> element; implicit in such an element is a requirement that there be a causal connection between the actor's conduct and the required result."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="49022" class="ldml-sentence">Without meaning to suggest any moral equivalence between what happened here and the killing of human beings, I note that a common example of a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"result crime"</span> is homicide: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"caus<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> the death of a person."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="49228" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49022"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-3-103<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="49258" class="ldml-sentence">Analogously, the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> prohibit killing wildlife, which means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to cause physical death."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="49355" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Kill,</i> Black's Law Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">11th ed. 2019</span></a></span>)</span>.<a href="#note-fr_1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="49401" class="ldml-sentence">For these and other result crimes, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> deploy two principles of causation to decide whether <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> has done <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"causing."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="48645" data-sentence-id="49539" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49401"><span class="ldml-refname">LaFave</span>, <span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">supra</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">§ 6.4<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="49564" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="49564" data-sentence-id="49564" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49564"><span class="ldml-cite">¶70</span></a></span> Those principles are actual and proximate cause: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"It is required, for criminal liability, that the conduct of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> be both <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the actual cause, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘legal’</span> cause <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(often called <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘proximate’</span> cause)</span> of the result."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="49564" data-sentence-id="49797" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49564"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="49564" data-sentence-id="49801" class="ldml-sentence">Conduct is an actual cause when <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the result would not have happened in the absence of the conduct."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="49564" data-sentence-id="49901" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49901"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49901"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 6.4<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49564" data-sentence-id="49918" class="ldml-sentence">And, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i]</span>n the criminal law, the gist of the concept <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[of proximate cause]</span> is the not-so-complex principle that persons normally should be deemed responsible <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[only]</span> for the natural and probable consequences of their acts."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="49564" data-sentence-id="50140" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevrostad,669p2d126,128-30colo1983enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_49918"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Rostad</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">669 P.2d 126, 128</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="50189" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="50189" data-sentence-id="50189" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50189"><span class="ldml-cite">¶71</span></a></span> So, when <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s conduct and an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"intervening cause"</span> combine to actually cause a forbidden result, the question becomes whether that result was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the natural and probable consequence"</span> of the conduct, versus something that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"could not foresee."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="50189" data-sentence-id="50454" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895633827" data-vids="895633827" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50189"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">971 P.2d 223, 226</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50189"><span class="ldml-refname">1 Ronald A. Anderson, <i class="ldml-italics">Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 200 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(12th ed. 1957)</span></span></a></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893582172" data-vids="893582172" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_50637,sentence_50189"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Newman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">302 P.3d at 442</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span> <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> may be held criminally liable for a prior voluntary act if <span class="ldml-entity">that act</span>, through a course of related and foreseeable events, results in proscribed conduct."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50189" data-sentence-id="50807" class="ldml-sentence">If the result wasn't foreseeable, then there's no proximate causation and <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> hasn't proven the actus reus of causing.<a href="#note-fr_2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_2">2</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="50932" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="50932" data-sentence-id="50932" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50932"><span class="ldml-cite">¶72</span></a></span> As <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevrostad,669p2d126,128-30colo1983enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_50932"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Rostad</i></span></a></span> and <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895633827" data-vids="895633827" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50932"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Saavedra-Rodriguez</i></span></a></span></span> demonstrate, the plurality shouldn't dismiss proximate cause as exclusive to tort law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50932" data-sentence-id="51056" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> plur. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶¶ 38–39</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>ort principles can't be shoehorned into <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_51080"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> because that statutory provision doesn't authorize <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> to recover by proving a civil negligence claim.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Rather, ... <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_51253"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> requires proof establishing a criminal offense pursuant to one of the taking statutory provisions."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50932" data-sentence-id="51387" class="ldml-sentence">Criminal law implicates proximate <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_51421" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="266" data-vol="486"></span> causation whenever the General Assembly criminalizes causing.</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span data-paragraph-id="50932" data-sentence-id="51484" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885883480" data-vids="885883480" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_51542"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Stewart</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">55 P.3d 107, 120–21</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[criminal]</span> <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> is responsible for serious bodily injury to another if the injury is a natural and probable consequence of his misconduct."</span></span>)</span></span><span data-paragraph-id="50932" data-sentence-id="51690" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891578010" data-vids="891578010" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_51767"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Apollo Energies, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">611 F.3d 679, 690</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Central to all of <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> on the due process constraints on criminal <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> is foreseeability—whether it is framed as a constitutional constraint on causation and mental state, or whether it is framed as a presumption in statutory construction."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">citations omitted</span>)</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_52153"><span class="ldml-refname">Marianne Wesson, <i class="ldml-italics">Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167, 169</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1981</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"In order to prove causation <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> must show that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s conduct was the proximate cause of the prohibited result, and not merely the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘but-for’</span> cause."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="50932" data-sentence-id="52324" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="52325" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="52325" data-sentence-id="52325" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52325"><span class="ldml-cite">¶73</span></a></span> Tying everything together, to prove the actus reus of the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> needed to show that 5 Star performed a voluntary act that actually and foreseeably caused fish to die.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52325" data-sentence-id="52515" class="ldml-sentence">No one disputes that 5 Star voluntarily stored feces-contaminated water in ponds.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52325" data-sentence-id="52597" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> presented evidence that this wastewater mixed with rainwater, spilled into a river, and then killed fish by spiking the river's ammonia levels and depleting its dissolved oxygen.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52325" data-sentence-id="52790" class="ldml-sentence">The superseding event of the rain implicates proximate causation, not the voluntary act requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52325" data-sentence-id="52891" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the plurality errs by holding that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"failed to formally allege, never mind present proof,"</span> that 5 Star committed a voluntary act prohibited by the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52325" data-sentence-id="53068" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52891"><span class="ldml-cite">Plur. op. ¶ 5</span></a></span>.<a href="#note-fr_3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_3">3</a></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_53083" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="II. Mens Rea" data-content-heading-label="II. Mens Rea" data-ordinal_start="2" data-specifier="II" id="heading_53083"><span data-paragraph-id="53083" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="53083" data-sentence-id="53083" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53083" data-sentence-id="53087" class="ldml-sentence">Mens Rea</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="53095" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="53095" data-sentence-id="53095" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53095"><span class="ldml-cite">¶74</span></a></span> The plurality affirms the division on actus reus, so it doesn't reach the division's other holding that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to present evidence that 5 Star violated the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>' implied mens rea of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knowingly."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="53095" data-sentence-id="53313" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53095"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">at</i> ¶ 6</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deptofnatresv5starfeedlot,inc,2019coa162m"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dep't of Nat. Res. v. 5 Star Feedlot Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 COA 162M</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––"><span class="ldml-cite">––– P.3d ––––</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_53434"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(6)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A person acts <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘knowingly’</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘willfully’</span>, with respect to a result of his conduct, when <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53095" data-sentence-id="53599" class="ldml-sentence">Given my resolution of the actus reus issue, I would decide this question and hold that the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> impose strict liability.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="53729" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="53729" data-sentence-id="53729" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53729"><span class="ldml-cite">¶75</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> sued 5 Star pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> that authorizes <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a civil action against any person ... to recover ... value of any wildlife taken in violation of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the Wildlife Code]</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="53729" data-sentence-id="53913" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53729"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-110<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.<a href="#note-fr_4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_4">4</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="53729" data-sentence-id="53943" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> claimed violations of three predicate take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>, and none of them specify a mens rea for taking:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_54053" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="54053" class="ldml-sentence">• <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><i class="ldml-italics">"It is unlawful for any person to</i> hunt, <i class="ldml-italics">take</i> , or have in such person's possession any <i class="ldml-italics">wildlife <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[within this state and not privately owned]</span>,</i> except as permitted by <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the Wildlife Code]</span> or by rule or regulation of the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity">Parks and Wildlife Commission</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Commission"</span>)</span>]</span>."</span></span> <span data-sentence-id="54324" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54053"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-109<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span></span>.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_54370" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="54370" class="ldml-sentence">• <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><i class="ldml-italics">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[I]</span>t is unlawful for any person to take,</i> possess, transport, export, process, sell <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_54456" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="267" data-vol="486"></span> or offer for sale, or ship <i class="ldml-italics">nongame wildlife</i> deemed by the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[C]</span>ommission to be in need of management ....</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[I]</span>t is also unlawful for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment nongame wildlife deemed by the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[C]</span>ommission to be in need of management ...."</span></span></span> <span data-sentence-id="54743" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54370"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-2-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span></span>.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_54789" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="54789" class="ldml-sentence">• <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><i class="ldml-italics">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[I]</span>t is unlawful for any person to take,</i> possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive ... species ... of <i class="ldml-italics">wildlife</i> ... <i class="ldml-italics">determined to be threatened</i> ... <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[by the Commission]</span>."</span></span> <span data-sentence-id="55061" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54789"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-2-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span></span>.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="55107" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="55107" data-sentence-id="55107" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55107"><span class="ldml-cite">¶76</span></a></span> Although <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span> can proscribe an act without regard to a culpable mental state,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895768309" data-vids="895768309" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55107"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Washburn</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">197 Colo. 419</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">593 P.2d 962, 964</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1979</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the requisite mental state may be implied,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894501522" data-vids="894501522" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55107"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Gross</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">830 P.2d 933, 940</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55107" data-sentence-id="55359" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> implies a mental state requirement turns on <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <span class="ldml-entity">legislative intent</span> represented by <span class="ldml-entity">the statutory scheme</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="55107" data-sentence-id="55546" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887825823" data-vids="887825823" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Manzo</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">144 P.3d 551, 554</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_55635,sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-503<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span> culpable mental state may ... be required for the commission of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[an]</span> offense ... if the proscribed conduct necessarily involves such a culpable mental state."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="55107" data-sentence-id="55799" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="55800" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="55800" data-sentence-id="55800" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55800"><span class="ldml-cite">¶77</span></a></span> At the time of the accident, the Wildlife Code defined <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to acquire possession of wildlife; but such term shall not include the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a motor vehicle, vessel, or train."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="55800" data-sentence-id="56023" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55800"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2019</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55800" data-sentence-id="56054" class="ldml-sentence">Since <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions,"</span> the exclusion of certain accidental killings reveals that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> includes all other accidental killings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55800" data-sentence-id="56253" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889625625" data-vids="889625625" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56054"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Riley v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">104 P.3d 218, 221</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="56301" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="56301" data-sentence-id="56301" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56301"><span class="ldml-cite">¶78</span></a></span> 5 Star's response to the definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> falls flat.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56301" data-sentence-id="56363" class="ldml-sentence">It argues that the exception for some accidental killings is meant to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"protect<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> individuals from liability for acts knowingly directed toward wildlife after an accident,"</span> such as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"dislodg<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>, mov<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>, aid<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>, or euthaniz<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> an animal after an accident."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="56301" data-sentence-id="56626" class="ldml-sentence">But, by its own terms, the exception applies only to accidents and only to acts that kill or wound by means of a vehicle.<a href="#note-fr_5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_5">5</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="56748" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="56748" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56748"><span class="ldml-cite">¶79 A</span></a></span> second clue that the General Assembly didn't imply a mens rea for taking is the express inclusion of a knowledge <span class="ldml-entity">standard in <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56748"><span class="ldml-cite">sections 33-2-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56748"><span class="ldml-cite">33-2-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span></span></span></span> for the transportation of wildlife by common carriers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="56971" class="ldml-sentence">The inclusion of that mental state requirement signals that the General Assembly meant what it said when it omitted a mens rea for taking in the same subsections.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="57133" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="57133" data-sentence-id="57133" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57133"><span class="ldml-cite">¶80</span></a></span> 5 Star responds that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> implied a knowing mens rea for the entire subsection but included the express language to appease common carriers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57133" data-sentence-id="57289" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> read <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"avoid<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> rendering any words or phrases meaningless."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="57133" data-sentence-id="57368" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevross,2021co9" data-prop-ids="sentence_57289"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Ross</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 9</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57289"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 34</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890251622" data-vids="890251622" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">479 P.3d 910, 917</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="57420" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="57420" data-sentence-id="57420" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57420"><span class="ldml-cite">¶81</span></a></span> Further, by drawing the line at knowing conduct, 5 Star <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(and the concurrence)</span> would read the Wildlife Code as allowing <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> to kill wildlife recklessly or with criminal negligence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57420" data-sentence-id="57607" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_57626,sentence_57420"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(8)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A person acts recklessly when <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur ...."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_57768,sentence_57420"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A person acts with criminal negligence when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur ...."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57420" data-sentence-id="57998" class="ldml-sentence">That result conflicts with <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the policy of the <span class="ldml-entity">state of Colorado</span> that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of <span class="ldml-entity">the people</span> of this state and its visitors."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="57420" data-sentence-id="58239" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57998"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-101<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57420" data-sentence-id="58269" class="ldml-sentence">To the extent <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> is ambiguous, <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado courts</span> may consider <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he object <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_58350" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="268" data-vol="486"></span> sought to be attained,"</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he consequences of a particular construction,"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he legislative declaration or purpose."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="57420" data-sentence-id="58474" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58474"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 2-4-203<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(g)</span></span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="58515" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="58515" data-sentence-id="58515" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58515"><span class="ldml-cite">¶82</span></a></span> The division didn't analyze the aforementioned textual evidence of strict liability, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">5 Star Feedlot</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 16–26</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> instead, it extended the reasoning of two decisions from <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58515" data-sentence-id="58715" class="ldml-sentence">In one of <span class="ldml-entity">those cases</span>, a division held that there was an implied mens rea of knowing for <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span>'s prohibition against <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"kill<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> and abandon<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> any wildlife."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="58515" data-sentence-id="58879" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889805466" data-vids="889805466" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58715"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Lawrence</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">55 P.3d 155, 163</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58715"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-117, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span> )</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">abrogated on other grounds by</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888766637" data-vids="888766637" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58715"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Crawford v. Washington</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">541 U.S. 36</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">124 S.Ct. 1354</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">158 L.Ed.2d 177</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58515" data-sentence-id="59080" class="ldml-sentence">The second case reached the same conclusion after the same <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> was amended to prohibit <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"tak<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> and abandon<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58515" data-sentence-id="59209" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890697779" data-vids="890697779" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59080"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Gordon</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">160 P.3d 284, 289</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59080"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-117, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58515" data-sentence-id="59301" class="ldml-sentence">Both divisions reasoned that <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"logically require<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span>"</span> a knowing mental state.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58515" data-sentence-id="59389" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889805466" data-vids="889805466" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59301"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lawrence</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">55 P.3d at 163</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890697779" data-vids="890697779" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59301"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Gordon</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">160 P.3d at 289</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="59440" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="59440" data-sentence-id="59440" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59440"><span class="ldml-cite">¶83</span></a></span> The division below thought that the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> at issue here also logically require a knowing mental state since <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"proscribe<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> conduct that is virtually identical to the conduct proscribed by the versions of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>]</span> construed in <span class="ldml-entity">those cases</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="59440" data-sentence-id="59701" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59440"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">5 Star Feedlot</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 23</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59440" data-sentence-id="59723" class="ldml-sentence">The division also conducted a <i class="ldml-italics">noscitur a sociis</i> analysis, concluding that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> requires a mental state of knowingly because it appears in series with other conduct that implies knowledge: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt, take, or have in such person's possession."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="59440" data-sentence-id="59964" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59723"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 23–24</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59723"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-109<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59440" data-sentence-id="60006" class="ldml-sentence">Neither argument overpowers the textual evidence of strict liability.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="60075" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="60075" data-sentence-id="60075" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60075"><span class="ldml-cite">¶84</span></a></span> The two <span class="ldml-entity">court of appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> interpreted <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> entitled <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Willful destruction of wildlife—<span class="ldml-entity">legislative intent</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="60075" data-sentence-id="60195" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60075"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-117, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60075" data-sentence-id="60222" class="ldml-sentence">Since <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"willfully"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knowingly"</span> are synonyms, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60222"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(6)</span></span></a></span>, it made sense for the divisions to infer a knowledge requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60075" data-sentence-id="60351" class="ldml-sentence">Further, the divisions interpreted the phrases <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"kill<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> and abandon<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"tak<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> and abandon<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="60075" data-sentence-id="60460" class="ldml-sentence">Since <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"abandon"</span> means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o relinquish or give up with the <i class="ldml-italics">intention</i> of never again reclaiming one's rights or interest in,"</span> <i class="ldml-italics">Abandon,</i> Black's Law Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">11th ed. 2019</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>, it was reasonable to require the general intent mental state of knowledge, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60460"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(6)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60075" data-sentence-id="60745" class="ldml-sentence">But, since the titles of the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> don't imply a mental state requirement and <span class="ldml-entity">the statutes</span> don't pair taking with abandoning, a knowing mental state isn't logically required here.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="60945" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="60945" data-sentence-id="60945" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60945"><span class="ldml-cite">¶85</span></a></span> The division's <i class="ldml-italics">noscitur a sociis</i> argument doesn't work either.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60945" data-sentence-id="61012" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61012"><span class="ldml-cite">Sections 33-2-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61012"><span class="ldml-cite">33-2-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span></span></span> make it unlawful to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship"</span> wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60945" data-sentence-id="61156" class="ldml-sentence">It is particularly easy to imagine the unknowing transportation of wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60945" data-sentence-id="61233" class="ldml-sentence">Presumably, that's why the General Assembly expressly imposed a mens rea of knowledge for transportation by common carriers.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="61357" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="61357" data-sentence-id="61357" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61357"><span class="ldml-cite">¶86</span></a></span> Further, the <i class="ldml-italics">noscitur a sociis</i> analysis doesn't even make sense for <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61357"><span class="ldml-cite">section 33-6-109<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> because, at least under the Wildlife Code, one can <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"have ... possession"</span> of wildlife unknowingly.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61357" data-sentence-id="61547" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_61567,sentence_61357"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(34)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possession"</span> to include <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any control over the object"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61357" data-sentence-id="61632" class="ldml-sentence">Surprisingly, the division's primary support for its rule that possession requires knowledge is the definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"voluntary act"</span>: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an act performed consciously as a result of effort or determination, and includes the possession of property if the actor was aware of his physical possession or control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate it."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="61357" data-sentence-id="62002" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61632"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(9)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61632"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">5 Star Feedlot</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 23</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61357" data-sentence-id="62045" class="ldml-sentence">But the fact that mere possession qualifies as a voluntary act only if <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> had awareness doesn't establish a universal mens rea for possession crimes.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="62203" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="62203" data-sentence-id="62203" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62203"><span class="ldml-cite">¶87</span></a></span> Having reviewed the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>, I would hold that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> do not contain an implied mens rea requirement, let alone a mens rea of knowledge.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_62347" data-ordinal_end="3" data-types="conclusion" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-ordinal_start="3" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="III" id="heading_62347"><span data-paragraph-id="62347" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="62347" data-sentence-id="62347" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62347" data-sentence-id="62352" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="62362" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="62362" data-sentence-id="62362" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62362"><span class="ldml-cite">¶88</span></a></span> Because I would reverse the division on actus reus and mens rea, I would remand <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> for the resolution of 5 Star's causation arguments.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62362" data-sentence-id="62532" class="ldml-sentence">One of those arguments is that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> should have granted 5 Star's <span class="ldml-entity">motion for <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_62622" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="269" data-vol="486"></span> summary judgment</span> because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s causation evidence was insufficient.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62362" data-sentence-id="62697" class="ldml-sentence">That issue includes whether 5 Star foreseeably caused the fish to die.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="62767" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="62767" data-sentence-id="62767" class="ldml-sentence">I am authorized to state that JUSTICE HART and JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER join in this dissent.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="62856" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="62856" data-sentence-id="62857" class="ldml-sentence">As relevant here, the taking statutory provisions have the same actus reus, as <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> proscribe the same voluntary act.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="62974" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="62974" data-sentence-id="62975" class="ldml-sentence">Pursuant to its review of the record, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> discerned that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"concede<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span> that 5 Star's containment ponds comply with all relevant Colorado laws."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="62974" data-sentence-id="63148" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deptofnatresv5starfeedlot,inc,2019coa162m" data-prop-ids="sentence_63148"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dep't of Nat. Res. v. 5 Star Feedlot, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 COA 162M</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63148"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 3</span></a></span></span> n.1, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_63148"><span class="ldml-cite">––– P.3d ––––</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62974" data-sentence-id="63231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> don't have to go that far.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62974" data-sentence-id="63261" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are content to indicate that the record supports the conclusion that 5 Star's operation of its containment ponds at the time of the rainstorm was lawful.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="63426" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="63426" data-sentence-id="63427" class="ldml-sentence">Based on the dead fish collected, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> estimated that approximately 15,000 fish died.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63426" data-sentence-id="63518" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> arrived at its damage calculation of $625,755 using that estimate, and because it doesn't affect our analysis, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> accept the estimate at face value.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="63693" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="63693" data-sentence-id="63694" class="ldml-sentence">The taking statutory provisions prohibit acts other than <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"tak<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> protected wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63693" data-sentence-id="63782" class="ldml-sentence">However, those prohibited acts are not pertinent here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63693" data-sentence-id="63837" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, our discussion of the voluntary act or actus reus required by the taking statutory provisions is limited to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"tak<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> protected wildlife.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="63981" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr5">5</a> <span data-paragraph-id="63981" data-sentence-id="63982" class="ldml-sentence">The division didn't reach 5 Star's second and third contentions.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="64046" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr6" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr6">6</a> <span data-paragraph-id="64046" data-sentence-id="64047" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> decided to address both issues raised by <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_64101" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="64101" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-sentence-id="64104" class="ldml-sentence">Whether proving a violation of the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> requires evidence of knowing conduct.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_64190" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="64190" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-sentence-id="64193" class="ldml-sentence">Whether proving a violation of the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> requires evidence of a voluntary act that is itself illegal.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="64302" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr7" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr7">7</a> <span data-paragraph-id="64302" data-sentence-id="64303" class="ldml-sentence">The provisions of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64303"><span class="ldml-cite">criminal code</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"do not bar, suspend, or otherwise affect any right <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[to]</span> or liability <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[for]</span> damages ... authorized by law to be recovered ... in a civil action."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="64302" data-sentence-id="64485" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64303"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-103<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="64302" data-sentence-id="64515" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unless the context otherwise requires,"</span> the provisions of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64515"><span class="ldml-cite">criminal code</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"govern the construction of ... any offense defined in any <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of this state."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="64302" data-sentence-id="64684" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64515"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-103<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="64698" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr8" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr8">8</a> <span data-paragraph-id="64698" data-sentence-id="64699" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> amended the definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>ake"</span> as follows: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to <i class="ldml-italics">kill or otherwise</i> acquire possession of wildlife; except that the term does not include the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a motor vehicle, vessel, or train."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="64698" data-sentence-id="64949" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64699"><span class="ldml-cite">Ch. 49, sec. 1</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64699"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(48)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_65013,sentence_64699"><span class="ldml-cite">2020 Colo. Sess. Laws 167, 167</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span> to underscore the substantive part of <span class="ldml-entity">the amendment</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="64698" data-sentence-id="65082" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> assume without deciding that, with some exceptions not relevant here, the <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span> definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>ake"</span> included the killing of the wildlife identified in the taking statutory provisions.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="65270" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr9" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr9">9</a> <span data-paragraph-id="65270" data-sentence-id="65271" class="ldml-sentence">Before the division, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> largely sang a different tune.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65270" data-sentence-id="65333" class="ldml-sentence">Its chief argument there was that there is no voluntary act requirement in the taking statutory provisions because, in its view, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> create strict liability offenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65270" data-sentence-id="65501" class="ldml-sentence">The division had no trouble rejecting this contention, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> devote no time to it because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> abandoned it before knocking on our door.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="65643" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr10" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr10">10</a> <span data-paragraph-id="65643" data-sentence-id="65644" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> does not rely on an alleged omission by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">5 Star.</span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="65643" data-sentence-id="65702" class="ldml-sentence">For that reason, and for the sake of simplicity, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not analyze the concept of omission of an act in this opinion.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="65819" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr11" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr11">11</a> <span data-paragraph-id="65819" data-sentence-id="65820" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21401,embeddedsentence_65836"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-502</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing that when a culpable mental state or mens rea is not required for the commission of an offense, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the offense is one of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘strict liability’</span> "</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="65987" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr12" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr12">12</a> <span data-paragraph-id="65987" data-sentence-id="65988" class="ldml-sentence">To the extent that the division's references to an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unlawful"</span> voluntary act meant the voluntary act proscribed by the taking statutory provisions, its analysis aligns with ours.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="66165" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr13" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr13">13</a> <span data-paragraph-id="66165" data-sentence-id="66166" class="ldml-sentence">Two years after <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decided <i class="ldml-italics">Garcia</i> <i class="ldml-italics">,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66166"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-4-105</span></a></span> by adding the mens rea of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knowingly or recklessly."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="66165" data-sentence-id="66296" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889756166" data-vids="889756166" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66166"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Copeland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2 P.3d at 1285</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66166"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 18-4-105 and 18-4-106, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="66371" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr14" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr14">14</a> <span data-paragraph-id="66371" data-sentence-id="66372" class="ldml-sentence">To establish a prima facie case for a negligence tort claim, <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> must show that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, having a legal duty of care, breached that duty through <i class="ldml-italics">any</i> act or omission, and that such act or omission caused <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>'s injury.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66371" data-sentence-id="66613" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887194845" data-vids="887194845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66372"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Rocky Mountain Festivals, Inc. v. Parsons Corp.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">242 P.3d 1067, 1074</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="66700" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr15" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr15">15</a> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="66701" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> admits in its opening brief that the issue of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"causation ... is not before <span class="ldml-entity">this Court</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="66799" class="ldml-sentence">True to this concession, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> discusses causation and related concepts <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(such as foreseeability)</span> only in the limited context of arguing that interpreting the taking statutory provisions as imposing strict liability does not give rise to any constitutional infirmities because, in its view, a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"proximate cause requirement"</span> is automatically imported into those provisions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="67174" class="ldml-sentence">Since <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not reach the mens rea question, however, that contention is irrelevant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="67259" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not otherwise discuss causation because ours is an adversarial system of justice that adheres to <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> presentation principle, which puts the onus on <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> to frame the issues to be decided while assigning to <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> the role of neutral arbiters of the matters raised by <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="67562" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:unitedstatesvsineneng-smith,590us371,376,140sct1575,1579,206led2d8662020" data-prop-ids="sentence_67259"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Sineneng-Smith</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">––– U.S. ––––</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">206 L.Ed.2d 866</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="67657" class="ldml-sentence">As the division put it, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"should not be making arguments for <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="67734" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deptofnatresv5starfeedlot,inc,2019coa162m" data-prop-ids="sentence_67734"><span class="ldml-refname">Dep't</span></a></span> of </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67734"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Nat. Res.,</i> ¶ 40</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66700" data-sentence-id="67760" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys, not judicial officers, should lawyer <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="67814" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="67814" data-sentence-id="67815" class="ldml-sentence">Consistent with <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' usage, I refer to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67815"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 1 to 6 of Title 33</span></a></span> as the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"wildlife code."</span></span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="67913" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="67913" data-sentence-id="67914" class="ldml-sentence">Colorado's original <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67914"><span class="ldml-cite">1899 Game and Fish Act</span></a></span> largely concerned hunting- and fishing-related activities but did include a handful of provisions proscribing certain practices that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> might today call industrial pollution.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67913" data-sentence-id="68132" class="ldml-sentence">For example, <span class="ldml-entity">the Act</span> provided that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[n]</span>o sawdust, tailings or other deleterious or poisonous substance shall be allowed to run or pass into or pollute any public waters containing fish, or deposited or left where it may be carried by natural causes into such waters, in such quantities as to destroy or be detrimental to the fish or spawn therein."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="67913" data-sentence-id="68481" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68132"><span class="ldml-cite">Ch. 98, sec. 7</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68132"><span class="ldml-cite">1899 Colo. Sess. Laws 184, 213-14</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67913" data-sentence-id="68532" class="ldml-sentence">The General Assembly later removed such provisions, however, narrowing the scope of the wildlife code.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67913" data-sentence-id="68635" class="ldml-sentence">To the extent some current provisions still refer to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"poisons"</span> in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68635"><span class="ldml-cite">part 2 of article 6</span></a></span>, the legislative declaration in that part of the wildlife code makes clear that these provisions are not about curbing pollution but aim to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"promote humane methods of animal control and discourage the use of inhumane methods"</span> of controlling wildlife populations.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67913" data-sentence-id="68984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68635"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-201<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="69016" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="69016" data-sentence-id="69017" class="ldml-sentence">This provision was amended in <span class="ldml-entity">2020</span> to clarify that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> includes the killing of wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69016" data-sentence-id="69109" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69017"><span class="ldml-cite">ch. 49, sec. 1</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69017"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_69177,sentence_69017"><span class="ldml-cite">2020 Colo. Sess. Laws 167, 167</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to <i class="ldml-italics">kill or otherwise</i> acquire possession of wildlife"</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69016" data-sentence-id="69269" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This amendment</span> confirms, consistent with the long history of the wildlife code, that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hunt"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> require affirmative, knowing conduct.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="69409" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="69409" data-sentence-id="69410" class="ldml-sentence">Notably, the taking provisions under the wildlife code are not passively phrased in terms of a particular result; <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> do not, for example, simply prohibit acts that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"cause the death of"</span> wildlife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69409" data-sentence-id="69607" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">Compare</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_69642,sentence_69410"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-3-105, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">prohibiting criminally negligent conduct that <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><i class="ldml-italics">"causes the death</i> of another person"</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69409" data-sentence-id="69744" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, these provisions forbid the specific act of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> wildlife.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="69814" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="69815" class="ldml-sentence">The plurality assumes without deciding that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> included killing wildlife at the time of the accident.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="69923" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69815"><span class="ldml-cite">Plur. op. ¶ 22 n.8</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="69943" class="ldml-sentence">That assumption is correct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="69971" class="ldml-sentence">Until recently, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> meant <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to acquire possession of wildlife; but such term shall not include the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a motor vehicle, vessel, or train."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="70154" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69971"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2019</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="70185" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Possession"</span> means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"either actual or constructive possession of or <i class="ldml-italics">any control</i> over the object referred to."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="70294" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70185"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(34)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="70342" class="ldml-sentence">One exercises some control over an animal by killing it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="70399" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, the exclusion of some killings implies that other killings are included.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="70482" class="ldml-sentence">Subsequent statutory history confirms that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"taking"</span> has always included killing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69814" data-sentence-id="70563" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70482"><span class="ldml-cite">ch. 49, sec. 1</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70482"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-1-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(43)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_70631,sentence_70482"><span class="ldml-cite">2020 Colo. Sess. Laws 167, 167</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">amending</span> the definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> to <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><i class="ldml-italics">"to kill or otherwise</i> acquire possession of wildlife"</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70740" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70740" data-sentence-id="70741" class="ldml-sentence">Logistically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have held that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an intervening cause defense is properly treated as an affirmative defense."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="70740" data-sentence-id="70851" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885883480" data-vids="885883480" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70741"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Stewart</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">55 P.3d 107, 118 n.6</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70904" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="70905" class="ldml-sentence">The plurality implies that I'm <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"lawyer<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> for <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>, injecting causation into the debate over actus reus where <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> failed to.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="71044" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70905"><span class="ldml-cite">Plur. op. ¶ 39 n.15</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="71065" class="ldml-sentence">Not so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="71073" class="ldml-sentence">Urging <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to grant certiorari, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> argued that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"5 Star confuses the voluntary act requirement with causation."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="71190" class="ldml-sentence">And, at oral argument, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> told <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Operating wastewater ponds involves any number of voluntary acts....</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity">They</span> violate the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> when <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> proximately cause the take, when <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> foreseeably cause wildlife to die."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="71425" class="ldml-sentence">But regardless of who thought of what, it is really the plurality that has put causation at issue with its claim that the voluntary act of storing feces-contaminated water in ponds didn't kill fish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="71624" class="ldml-sentence">There's no way to understand that assertion except as a rejection of <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s factual finding that 5 Star's conduct actually caused the fish to die.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="71785" class="ldml-sentence">I raise proximate causation to show that, even if the plurality believes that 5 Star's conduct was less important than the rain, there's no need to deny that 5 Star's conduct was a but-for cause of the fish's deaths.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70904" data-sentence-id="72002" class="ldml-sentence">On remand, proximate causation would have provided a framework for analyzing whether 5 Star is legally blameworthy given the intervening cause of the rain.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="72157" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="72157" data-sentence-id="72158" class="ldml-sentence">This civil case implicates fundamental principles of criminal law because other provisions in the Wildlife Code make it a misdemeanor to violate the take <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72157" data-sentence-id="72322" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72158"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-109<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72158"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 33-6-104<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72157" data-sentence-id="72386" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>e must interpret <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span> <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> consistently, whether <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> encounter its application in a criminal or noncriminal context ...."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="72157" data-sentence-id="72513" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889879011" data-vids="889879011" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72386"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Leocal v. Ashcroft</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">543 U.S. 1, 11 n.8</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">125 S.Ct. 377</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">160 L.Ed.2d 271</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="72591" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_5">5</a> <span data-paragraph-id="72591" data-sentence-id="72592" class="ldml-sentence">The concurrence reasons that the definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"take"</span> doesn't rule out a knowing mens rea because a driver could kill wildlife knowingly and accidentally.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72591" data-sentence-id="72747" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72592"><span class="ldml-cite">Conc. op. ¶ 55</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72591" data-sentence-id="72763" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"A person acts <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘knowingly’</span> ... with respect to a result of his conduct, when <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="72591" data-sentence-id="72914" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72763"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-501<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(6)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72591" data-sentence-id="72929" class="ldml-sentence">So, when a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"practically certain"</span> harm materializes, that's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"no ... <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘accident’</span> "</span>; it is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the result of a deliberate decision to endanger another."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="72591" data-sentence-id="73075" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894227603" data-vids="894227603" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72929"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Voisine v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">––– U.S. ––––</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">136 S. Ct. 2272, 2278–79</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">195 L.Ed.2d 736</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2016</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>