### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs N ove m be r 10, 200 9 STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. J. S TEV EN BRA SF IELD
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r H a y w o o d C o u n ty N o. 6115 C l ay burn P eepl es , Judge

N o. W 2009- 00026- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 25, 2010

T he D efe ndant , J

. St even Bra s fi el d, pl ed gui lt yt o t hr ee c ount s of vi ol at i ng t r appi ng r egul at i ons . T he tr i al cour ts ent ence d the D efe ndantt o s er ve thi r t yday s of pr obat i on and or der ed hi m t o pay $5500 i n r es t i tut i on. O n appea l , t he D efe ndantcont ends t hatr es t i tut i on i s notpr operi n t hi s cas e and thatt he t r i al cour t err ed w hen i ts ett he amount of r es t i tut i on. A ft er a t hor ough r evi ew of t he evi dence and the appl i cabl e author i t i es , w e r ever s e and re m a n d th e c a se f

o r th e trial c o u rt, i n d e ter m in in g th e a p p ro p ria te r e stitu tio n in th is c a se , to c o n s i d e rt h e D e f

e n d a n t ’ s f

i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s a n d a b i l i t y t o p a y. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3 Appealas of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C i r c ui t C our t R e ve r s e d and R em anded R O B ER T W. W EDE MEY ER , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the court , i n w hi ch J OH N E VER ETT W I L L I AMS and J

. C. M C L IN , J J

. , j oi ned. J. D iane B lou n t ( at t ri al an d o n ap p ea l) , T ren ton , T en n esse e, an d T o m W

. C ri d er ( o n ap p ea l) , T r ent on, T ennes s ee, fort he A ppel l ant , J

. St even Bra s fi el d. R o b e rt E . C o o p e r, Jr., A tto rn e yG e n e ra l an d R e p o rte r; M ich a e l E . M o o re , S o licito r G e n e ra l; Sophi a S. L ee, A s s i s t ant A t t or ney G ener al ; G arr yG

. B r ow n, D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; H al D or s ey , A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al , fort he A ppel l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee. OP I NI ON I. F a cts T hi s cas e ar i s es fr om t he ac ci dent al death of a tr ai ned bi r d dog t hatw ander ed i nt o a s t eel t r ap t he D efe ndant s et i n vi ol at i on of T ennes s ee t r appi ng r egul at i ons . T he D efe ndant2

p led g u il ty to vi ol at i ng t he tr appi ng r egul at i ons i n t he fol l ow i ng t hr ee w ay s : s et t i ng a tr ap w i t hout the pr oper t yow ner ’ s w r i t t en cons ent ; s et t i ng a tr ap w i t houts t ampi ng i tw i t h t he t r apper ’ s name; and r eckl es s l ys et t i ng a tr ap fora per i od exce edi ng t hi r t y - s i x hour s . T he tr i al c o u rt h e ld a se n ten c in g h e a rin g , w h e re in th e f o llo w in g e v id e n c e w a s h e a rd : T ra v is B a g g e tt, t he ow nerof t he dog ki l l ed i n t he tr ap, t es t i fi ed thathe boughtthe d o g , a y el l ow L abr ador R etr i evern am ed G age, for$2500 one y earbefor e the dog w as ki l l ed. H e expl ai ned he boughtG age f

r om s om eone w ho had al r eady s pent $6000 t r ai ni ng G age t o be a “ r etr i evi ng duck dog. ” A ft erG age di ed, B aggettpur chas ed a dog t o r epl ace G age, and he s enti tt o a t r ai nerfors i x t o ei ghtm ont hs att he r at e of $500 pe rm ont h. B agg et tow ned , t rai ned , and sol d b et w een fi ft een and t w entybir d d og s over t he co urse of s ever al y ear s . H e expl ai ned t hat a dog’s val ue i s bas ed i n par ton i t s br eed a nd bl oodl i ne and thatG age’ s br eed a nd bl oodl i ne w er e part i cul ar l ygood. A ddi t i onal l y , G age’ s t r ai ni ng and r etr i evi ng abi l i t y w er e extr aor di nary . B aggett t es t i fi ed t hat , gi ven G age’ s br eedi ng and r etr i evi ng s ki l l , he w oul d s el l forbetw een $5000 a nd $8000, dependi ng on fl uctuat i ons i n t he m a rk e t a n d e c o n o m y . T h e D e f e n d a n t tes tifie d th a t, alth o u g h h e h a d n o w ritten c o n se n t to se t th e tra p in th is cas e, he had hunt ed on thi s pr oper t yfor fi ft een y ear s w i t h t he pr oper t yow ner ’ s per m i s s i on. H e expl ai ned thathe w as unabl e t o chec k t he tra ps w i t hi n t hi r t y - s i x hour s of s et t i ng t hem becau se he ha d to t ransporthis w heelchai r- bo un d w i fe t o an d from do ct or appo i ntm ents
. Th e De f e n d a n th a s b e e n d i s a b l e d a n d r e l y i n g u p o n S o c i a l S e c u r i t yDi s a b i l i t yi n c o me s i nce 1986. H e expl ai ned he w as t r appi ng t o s uppl ement t hi s i ncome a nd t o payhi s m edi cal b ill s, w h ich to tale d o v e r o n e m ill io n d o llars

. H e tes tifie d th a t, sh o rtlya f ter b e in g c h a rg e d in t hi s cas e, he devel oped pneumoni a, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a s i x- m ont h hos pi t al i zat i on, i ncl udi ng a s ix ty-d a ys ta yin th e in te n s iv e c a re u n it. A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f

th e h e a rin g , the trial c o u rt se n ten c e d th e D e f e n d a n t to se rv e th irty day s of pr obat i on and or der ed hi m t o pay $5500 i n r es t i tut i on. I t i s fr om t hi s j udgm entt hat t he D efen dan tno w app eal s. II . A n a ly sis T he D efe ndant fi r s t cont ends t he t r i al cour t err ed i n fi ndi ng t hat r es t i tut i o n w as a p p ro p ria te in th is c a se . H e a rg u e s th a t re stitu tio n w a s ina p p ro p ria te b e c a u se G a g e ’s d e a th w a s n o t th e d ire c t re su lt o f h is n o n - c o m p lian c e w ith tra p p in g re g u latio n s a n d b e c a u se h is cl ean c r i m i nal r ecor d and t he m i nor natur e of hi s cr i m e i ndi cat e t hatr es t i tut i on “goes bey ond th e f u n c tio n ” o f

p u n ish in g th e D e f

e n d a n t.3

T h e D ef en d an t al so co n tend s tha t, assu m ing resti tuti o n is ap p rop ri ate, the tri al co u rt e rre d w h e n it se t th e a m o u n t o f r e s titu tio n . H e a rg u e s th a t th e re c o rd d o e s n o t co n tain evi dence t hatt he vi ct i m s uffe r ed a pe cuni ary l os s i n t he amount of the r es t i tut i on s etbyt he t r i al cour t , and thatt he amount s etdoes notr efl ecta cons i der at i on of h is abi l i t yt o payt he r es t i tut i on. T he St at e r es ponds t hat r es t i tut i on i s appr opr i at e i n t hi s cas e bec aus e the purpos e of r es t i tut i on i s “notonl yt o compensa t e the vi ct i m butal s o t o p u n ish an d r ehabi l i t at e the gui l t y , ” and, as s uch, a def endantneed n o t h ave “ca us ed” a vi ct i m ’ s l os s i n or dert o be r es pons i bl e fo r it through an or derof r es t i tut i on. T he St at e furt herar gues t hat , even i f an im p o sit ion o f re sti tuti o n req u ir es a ca u sati o n n ex u s, the ill eg all yset t rap ca u sed G ag e’s d e a th

. A s to th e D e f

e n d a n t’s o b

jec tio n s to th e a m o u n t o f re stitu tio n im p o se d , the S tate re sp o n d s th a t a tria l co u rt in a c rim in a l c a se n e e d o n lyse t re stitu tio n th a t is “ re a so n a b le” ; a pr eci s e ca l cul at i on of actual l os s i s unnece s s ary and t hat t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m onys uppor t s t he t r i al cour t ’ s r es t i tut i on or der

. Fi nal l y , t he St at e conc edes t hatt he tr i al cour tm ade no f i ndi ng as t o t he D efe ndant ’ s abi l i t yt o pay but cont ends t hats uch an omi s s i on “s houl d notbe fa t al e rr o r.” W h e n th e d e f

e n d a n t ch a llen g e s th e re stitu tio n a m o u n t o rd e re d b yth e trial c o u rt, th is C our t w i l l ut i l i ze a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng w a s c o rre c t. T .C .A

. § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 (d ) (2 0 0 6 ); St at e v. Johns on , 968 S. W

. 2d 883, 884 ( T enn. C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e p u rp o se o f o rd e rin g re stitu tio n is to c o m p e n s a te th e v ictim a n d to p u n is h a n d re h a b ilita te th e d e f e n d a n t. Johns on , 968 S. W

. 2d at 8 8 5

. “I n det er m i ni ng t he a m o u n t a n d m e th o d o f p a ym e n t o r oth e r res titu tio n , th e c o u rt sh a ll cons i dert he fi nanci al r esou rce s an d futur e abi l i t yof t he def endantt o payorper for m . ” T. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 304 ( d) ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ); S t a t e v . B o t t o ms , 87 S. W

. 3d 95, 108 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2001). A ft er al l , “[a ] n or der of r es t i tut i on w hi ch obvi ous l y cannot be ful fi l l ed s er ves no purpos e for t he appe l l antort he vi ct i m . ” Johns on , 968 S. W

. 2d at886. T h ere i s “no form ul a for det er m i ni ng r es t i tut i on, ” butt he amount m us tbe “r eas onabl e” and “must be bas ed upon the vi ct i m s pecuni aryl os s and the fi nanci al condi t i on and obl i gat i ons of the def endant ; and the am o u n t ord ere d to b e p aid d o es n o t hav e to e q u al or m irror th e v ict im ’s pre cise p ec u n iary l os s . ” Johns on , 9 6 8 S .W .2 d a t 8 8 6 ; S ta te v . Sm ith , 898 S. W

. 2d 742, 747 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1994)

. Pecuni aryl os s i s defi ned as “( 1) A l l s peci al damages , butnotgeneral d am ag es, as su b sta n tiate d b ye v id e n c e in th e re c o rd o r a s ag re e d to b yth e d e f e n d a n t; an d (2 ) R e a so n a b le out
- of- pocketexpens es i ncurr ed byt he vi ct i m resu lt i ng fr om t he fi l i ng of cha r ges or c o o p e ra tin g in th e in v e s tig a tio n a n d p ro s e c u tio n o f th e o f f e n s e .” T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 4 (e ). A defe ndantor der ed t o payr es t i tut i on “s hal l be r es pons i bl e fort he pa y m entof t he4

r es t i tut i on unt i l t he expi r at i on of t he s ent ence i m pos ed b y the cour t , and anypaym entor p e rf o rm a n c e s c h e d u le e s ta b lis h e d b y th e c o u rt s h a ll n o t ex te n d b e y o n d th e e x p ir a tio n d a te .” T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 4 (g )(2 ); B o t t o ms , 87 S. W

. 3d at108. “A nyunpai d por t i on of the r es t i tut i on o rde red m ayb e c o n v erted into a civil j u d g m en t. ” T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -35 -30 4 (h)(1 ). In g e n e ra l, on ly“ th e in d iv id u a l o r in d iv id u a ls a g a in st w h o m th e o f f e n se w a s a c tu a lly c o m m itte d ” a re v ic tim s f o r p u rp o s e s o f

re s titu tio n . Stat e v. A l

f ord , 970 S. W

. 2d. 944 ( T enn. 1 9 9 8 ); s ee T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 304. T he A l f ord c o u rt h e ld th a t an in su ra n c e c o m p a n yth a t p a id t he medi cal expens es of t he vi ct i m of a de fenda nt ’ s comm i s s i on of re ckl es s endange r m ent w a s n o t a v ic tim f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

re s titu tio n . Id

. I n S ta te v . D o u g la s E dw a rdMa c k ie , a pane l o f th is C o u rt h e ld th a t a w o m a n to w h o m th e d e f e n d a n t so ld a sto len sh e d w a s n o t a v ictim forpurpos es of r ecove r i ng r es t i tut i on t hr ough t he def endant ’ s convi ct i on fors t eal i ng t he s hed. E 2008- 00816- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2009 W L 400645, *2- 5 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atK noxvi l l e, F e b . 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 ), per m . app. deni ed ( T enn. J u n e 22, 2009)

. T he pane l expl ai ned thatt he w om an coul d notr ece i ve r es t i tut i on beca us e her l os s of t he m oney s he pai d t he def endantfor t he s hed w as nott he “di r ectr es ul t ” of t h e d ef en d ant ’ s t heftof the s hed, beca us e the d e f e n d a n t c o m p le te d th e th e f t b e f o re h e s o ld th e w o m a n th e s h e d

. Id . a t 5

. Ind ividu als o r org an izati o n s the S tat e h as c h arg ed w ith ca ri n g fo r a v ict im also are v ic tim s u n d e r t h e re s titu tio n s ta tu te
. St at e v. W ebb , 130 S. W

. 3d 799, 836 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2003) ( hol di ng t hata humane s oci et y that car ed forani m al s s ei zed f r om a def

endantw ho comm i tt ed ani m al cru elt yis a v ict im b ec au se statute o b li g ates state-sp o n so red sh elt ers to c are f o rs u c h a n i ma l s )

. An i n d i v i d u a l o ro r g a n i z a t i o n th a tv o l u n t a r i l ya s s u me s c a r e o f a v i c t i m, h o w e v e r, i s n o t a v ic tim f o r p u rp o s e s o f

re s titu tio n . See St at e v. S tan ley A

. G agne , N o. E 2007- 02071- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2009 W L 331327, *2- 3 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atK noxvi l l e , Feb. 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 ), no Tenn. R

. App. P

. 11 appl i cat i on f i l ed

. I n t hi s cas e, t he D efe ndantw as or der ed t o payr es t i tut i on t o t he ow nerof a dog fort he value of t he do g ki l l e d by a t r a p t ha t w a s s e t i l l e ga l l y by t he D e fe nd a nt
. W e mu st fi rs t addr es s t he thr es hol d l egal ques t i on of w hethert he dog’ s o w n er is a vi ct i m w ho m any pr oper l yr ece i ve r es t i tut i on i n t hi s cas e. T he tr appi n g r e g ul at i ons t he D efe ndantvi ol at ed s eek t o pr eventt he for es eea bl e cons equenc es of an i m pr oper l ys etorm ai nt ai ned tr ap, w hi ch i ncl ude harm t o hum an and a ni m al l i fe. H ar m t o ani m al l i fe can r es ul ti n vet er i naryexpens es a n d , if th e a n im a l is kille d , c a n d e p riv e th e o w n e r of th e a n im a l’s v a lu e . In o u r vie w , an im a ls and thei row ner s ar e w i t hi n the clas s of vi ct i m s agai ns tw hom a vi ol at orof tr appi ng re g u la tio n s c o m m its h is c ri m e . See A l f ord , 970 S. W

. 2d at 945. Fur t her , an i l l egal l ys ett r ap t hat kil l s an ani m al “dir ect l y res ult s” i n fi nan ci al l oss t o the ani m al ’s ow ner becau se the loss is im m e d ia te a n d re q u ir e s n o f u rt h e r a c tio n b y th e d e f

e n d a n t. S e e M

a c k ie , 2009 W L 400643, at*2- 5. A s s uch, t he ow n er o f an ani m al ki l l ed byan i l l egal l ys ett r ap i s a vi ct i m for purpos es of r es t i tut i on. W e conc l ude that B aggett , t he ow ner of t he dog ki l l ed i n t hi s cas e,5

i s a vi c t i m of

t h e Def e n d a n t ’ s v i o l a t i o n o f

t r a p p i n g r e g u l a t i o n s a n d , t h u s , ma yr e c e i ve re s titu tio n f

o r t h e lo s s o f

th e d o g . T he D efe ndantal s o chal l enges t he amount of r es t i tut i on or der ed i n t hi s cas e. T he process for det erm i ning a rest i tuti on am ou nt i s a tw o-st ep process: t he tri al cou rtm ustfi rs t det er m i ne the pec uni aryl os s to the v ict im, and then i tm us tdet er m i ne how m uch of that a m o u n t th e d e f

e n d a n t c a n re a s o n a b ly b e e x p e c te d to p a y . See J ohns on , 968 S. W

. 2d at886; St at e v. W

endel lG ar

y G i bs on , N o. M 2001- 01430- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2002 W L 1 3 5 8711, at*3 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p ., a t N a s h v ille , J u n . 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 ), no Tenn. R

. App. P

. 11 appl i cat i on f i l ed

. A t th e se n te n cing h ea ri n g , B ag g ett , an ex p erien ce d b ir d d o g o w n er a n d tr aine r, t es t i fi ed he boughtG age f or $2500 and coul d have sol d G age f orbetw een $5000 a nd $8000. T he D efe ndanti nt r oduced nothi ng t o r efut e thes e fi gur es . T her efor e, t he evi dence i n t he rec o rd su b stan ti ates tha t G ag e w as w o rth $ 5 5 0 0 an d , thu s, that B ag g ett su ff ere d a p ec u n iary lo s s o f $ 5 5 0 0 w h e n th e D e f

e n d a n t’ s tr a p re s u lte d in G a g e ’s d e a th

. T he tr i al cour tdi d not , how ever , cons i der how m uch of B aggett ’ s pecuni aryl os s t he D e f e n d a n t c o u ld re a s o n a b ly b e e x p e c te d to p a y . See T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 4 (e ); B o t t o ms , 87 S. W

. 3d at108. T he D efe ndant t es t i fi ed att he s ent enci ng hear i ng t hathe has been on Soci al S e c u r it y D isa b ili tysin c e 1 9 8 6 , tha t h e w a s h o sp italiz e d f o r six m o n th s b e tw e e n h is i ndi c t me n ta n d h i s t r i a l i n t h i s c a s e , a n d t h a th e h a s me d i c a l d e b ti n e x c e s s o f o n e mi l l i on dol l ar s . T he re cor d does not s how t hatt he tr i al cour tcons i der ed thi s t es t i m onyw hen i ts et t he amount of t he D efe ndant ’ s r es t i tut i on. I ns t ead, t he courtconcl uded, “H er e’ s w hatI t hi nk

. . . . I t hi nk, b ase d upon t he t es t i m onyI ’ ve hea r d, t he val ue of the dog w as $5, 500. 00. T hat ’ s t he r es t i tut i on. ” The r ecor d, t her efor e, does not demonst r at e t hat t he tr i al cour tt ook i nt o acc ountt he D efe ndant ’ s fi xed i ncome, hi s heal t h, and hi s cons i der abl e debt

. A s s uch, w e c a n n o t p r e s u m e th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s o rd e r o f re s titu tio n w a s c o rr e c t. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 (d ); Johns on , 968 S. W

. 2d at884. A ccor di ngl y , w e r emand t he ca s e t o t he tr i al cour tt o cons i dert he D efe ndant ’ s fi nanci al r es our ces and futur e abi l i t y t o payi n det er m i ni ng th e a p p ro p ri a te re s titu tio n in th is c a s e . T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 4 (d ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). I I I . C oncl usi on A ft era thor ough r evi ew of t he evi dence and appl i cabl e author i t i es , w e conc l ude the t r i al courterr ed w hen i tor der ed the D efe ndantt o pay$5500 i n r es t i tut i on w i t hout c o n s i d e r i n g t h e De f

e n d a n t ’ s f

i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s a n d f u tu r e a b i l i t yt o p a y . As s u c h , we r emand t hi s cas e t o t he tr i al cour tforfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.

__________________________________ RO BE RT W. WEDE M E YE R, J UDGE