Case Title: State v. May

Citation: 166 Vt. 41, 689 A.2d 1075

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. May  (95-435); 166 Vt. 41; 689 A.2d 1075

[Filed 6-Dec-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                     No. 95-435

State of Vermont                                Supreme Court

                                                On Appeal from
     v.                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Norman F. May                                   September Term, 1996

Dean B. Pineles, J.

       Pamela Hall Johnson, Chittenden County Deputy State's Attorney, and
  Frank D. Molander, Legal Intern, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert W. Katims of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy & Frame, P.C.,
  Burlington, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.   Defendant, who was convicted of possession of stolen
  property, appeals the district court's restitution award for the victim's
  lost profits.  Apart from the insurance deductible, we strike the award on
  the ground that it was not proved with reasonable certainty.

       In July 1994, computer equipment valued at approximately $17,000 was
  stolen from a printing business.  In May 1995, defendant pled no contest to
  possession of stolen property based on his possession of the equipment from
  September to November 1994.  He was sentenced to a one-to-three-year
  suspended sentence, with special probation conditions requiring him to pay
  a fine of $1000 and setting a restitution hearing.

       At the restitution hearing, the printing business's general manager
  testified as follows: (1) the business had to pay its graphic artist $10
  per hour for 343.5 hours spent reentering information into the computer
  purchased to replace the stolen one; (2) the graphic artist was not
  available to work on other projects during those hours, resulting in lost
  profits of $3435, $10 for

 

  each of the 343.5 hours; (3) the business's insurance company reimbursed
  the business $10 per hour for the graphic artist's time, but not $10 per
  hour for the projected lost profits; (4) the business lost $10 per hour in
  profits for each of the 120 hours that the printing presses stood idle
  because project information had not yet been entered into the new
  computers; (5) the insurance company reimbursed the business $10 per hour
  for the press downtime, but not $10 per hour for the projected lost
  profits; (6) the business lost profits on three projects worth $5406 when
  the customers had the work done with other printers because of delays due
  to the theft; (7) the business had to discount one large project $3200
  because of delays due to the theft; (8) the business spent $388 for a new
  security system; (9) the general manager spent twenty hours of his time,
  valued at $20 per hour, working with police gathering evidence and
  following up on leads; (10) the insurance company reimbursed the business
  approximately $24,000 for its losses, leaving outstanding losses of just
  over $13,000, mostly for lost profits; (11) the insurance deductible was
  $250.

       The district court awarded the business (1) $3435 in lost profits
  associated with the graphic artist's time; (2) $1200 for lost profits
  associated with press downtime; (3) $2027 in lost profits associated with
  the three customers who took their projects to other printers; (4) $1200 in
  lost profits associated with the discounted project; and (5) $250 for the
  insurance deductible. The court refused to award restitution for the
  security system or for the time the general manager spent investigating the
  theft.  On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the court exceeded its
  authority under the restitution statute by awarding unliquidated sums not
  easily ascertainable, and (2) the restitution order does not relate to the
  offense for which defendant was convicted.

       "Restitution shall be considered in every case in which a victim of a
  crime has suffered a material loss or has incurred medical expenses."  13
  V.S.A. § 7043(a).  Restitution may include, among other things, cash
  compensation for damages to the victim's property.  Id. § 7043(b)(2).  In
  State v. Jarvis, 146 Vt. 636, 638-39,