Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): only by his third argument. I District courts have broad discretion to award restitution. State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn.1999). We therefore review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. State v. Nelson, 796 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.App.2011). Miller first argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering restitution because the state failed to prove that he is directly responsible for Montplaisir’s injuries. Crime victims are entitled to restitution for losses they incur from the crime. Minn.Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2012); State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103, 105 (Minn.App.1999). The district, court “shall consider ... the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense; and ... the income, resources .1996) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Oct. 15, 1996), with 
 Holding statements: (A) holding restitution for losses directly attributable to victims murder improper against defendant who helped conceal murder afterwards but otherwise took no part in it (B) holding restitution improper when awarded to homeowner for property damage caused by convicted murderer during random target practice  earlier in day of murder (C) holding that a landowner who lost a strip of property to a highway widening project could not recover losses caused by concurrent placement of a median strip because when less than the entire property is taken compensation for damage to the remainder can be awarded only if such damage is caused by the taking and cjonstruction of the median not the taking caused the alleged damage (D) holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted (E) holding that restitution for lost income in property cases was improper under the plain language of the statute because restitution for lost income is authorized only for victims of bodily injury
Output (English): holding that restitution for lost income in property cases was improper under the plain language of the statute because restitution for lost income is authorized only for victims of bodily injury