Restitution in Criminal Cases
Below is some general information about restitution orders in criminal cases. I would say that it is rare to obtain an order favorable to the defense in a lot of restitution hearings. Not always and I can think of a few cases off the top of my head where the ruling was in my favor. The information below should explain why it can be difficult to prevail in one of these hearings.
Victim restitution is mandatory under the California Constitution. Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b), provides in part that it is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer. Restitution must be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss. Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A)-(B). For the purposes of victim restitution under the state constitution, the parents of the direct crime victim are separate victims.
Courts will review a victim's restitution right as to be broadly and liberally construed and an appellate court reviews restitution awards for abuse of discretion. Also, the judge’s discretion in setting the amount of restitution is broad, and it may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole.
Finally, victims are entitled to an amount of restitution so as to make them whole but not more than their actual losses arising out of the defendant's criminal conduct. One object of restitution under Pen. Code, § 1202.4, is to restore the economic status quo by returning to the victim funds in which he or she has an ownership interest following a criminal conviction. However, a restitution order is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall.
Seems fair enough, right? I tend to agree.
I once represented a client in a jury trial against a charge of driving while their license was suspended as a result of a prior driving under the influence conviction. I believe the evidence proved that there was a two car accident resulting in some minor damage to both vehicles. The DA was seeking something like $30,000 in restitution for damages - seems excessive but I’m not a car expert (unless we’re talking about a 1999 Toyota Corolla.) I remember thinking to myself: doesn’t there need to be a causal connection between the criminal conduct and the injury? Is it a but-for test? I.e., but for my client driving when he wasn’t supposed to, there would not have been a collision? Isn’t there some civil rule that says that whether the operator of a vehicle had a license to drive was immaterial unless there is some causal relationship between the injuries and the failure to have a license… Something like that?
What if it was undisputed that the other driver’s negligence caused the collision and it was only discovered later that my client was driving on a suspended license? Could the driver who caused the accident somehow mitigate their civil liability by obtaining a judgment against the driver who didn’t have a license? In my case, I believe the evidence proved that my client was at fault in the collision. Even so, how do you prove that the fault was directly the result of my client’s license previously being suspended? But-for test? Seems more likely to be the case that most collisions are caused by inattention or dangerous maneuvers or something. How do you then tie that to someone’s status as an unlicensed driver? What if they’re actually a great driver? I don’t know. It can get tricky.
Got a restitution question? Give me a call and we can discuss it.
