Case Title: State v. Fontaine

Citation: 167 Vt. 529, 711 A.2d 667

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Fontaine  (97-043); 167 Vt. 529; 711 A.2d 667

[Filed 17-Apr-1998]

       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. 97-043

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       District Court of Vermont
                                             Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit
Steve A. Fontaine
                                             December Term, 1997

Matthew I. Katz, J.

       John T. Quinn, Addison County State's Attorney, Middlebury, for
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Robert Appel, Defender General, Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney, and
  Deborah Mans, Law Clerk (on the Brief), Montpelier, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson, and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.  Defendant Steve Fontaine was convicted of driving under the
  influence, death resulting, in violation of 23 V.S.A. §§ 1201(a)(2) and
  1210(e).  He appeals a probation condition requiring him to pay restitution
  for partial support to the victim's two minor children. He claims (1) the
  condition exceeds the statutory limits on restitution, (2) the evidence did
  not support the award, and (3) there was no proper inquiry into his ability
  to pay.  While we agree that restitution in the form of child support
  awarded here was reasonable and served the ends of justice, restitution in
  a criminal case is a creature of the legislature and its statutes on the
  subject are too narrow to permit the condition imposed.  We reverse.

       At sentencing, the trial court imposed two to ten years, all suspended
  but two years, and a $2,000 fine.  In addition, a special condition of
  probation was imposed requiring defendant to pay restitution in the form of
  $12.50 per week to each of the decedent's two minor children for sixteen
  years, for a sum total of $20,800.  The trial court arrived at this fixed
  sum by

 

  multiplying "$25 a week, times fifty-two weeks a year, . . . times sixteen
  years remaining in [the younger child's] time through graduation from high
  school."  As the court explained, the amount "would be far less than would
  be the actual cost of paying for raising a child, but would be a
  substantial amount over time, and we can know exactly what it's going to
  because it's clearly a matter of multiplication."  The court concluded,
  "[it's] not a perfect sum, but it's a liquidated sum."  This appeal
  followed.

       We address defendant's first claim and hold that the trial court did
  not have the statutory authority to require defendant, as a condition of
  probation, to contribute to the support of the deceased victim's
  dependents.  The statutes involved here are 28 V.S.A. § 252(b)(6) and 13
  V.S.A. § 7043.  We have held that "28 V.S.A. § 252(b)(6), which generally
  allows restitution as a condition of probation, is limited by 13 V.S.A. §
  7043, which specifically explains when restitution must be considered and
  what restitution may include."  State v. Jarvis, 146 Vt. 636, 638,