J.A.D. argues that allowing the court to order restitution for the expenses incurred by the victim's mother would clear the way for people to make frivolous and unsubstantiated claims. J.A.D. argues that under such an interpretation of the restitution statute, a person who drove anywhere in furtherance of the needs of a crime victim could seek compensation. But we note that there are protections that would guard against abuses of the statute. First, the victim must have incurred loss or harm as a result of a crime. That loss must have been directly caused by the conduct for which defendant was adjudged delinquent or convicted.
Restitution is also limited to recovery of economic damages sustained by the victim.
Finally, if there is a dispute over the type or amount of restitution, the dispute is to be resolved by a preponderance of evidence and the burden is on the prosecution. Precluding the parents of a child victim from receiving compensation for losses sustained by making the victim available for investigatory purposes would be contrary to the spirit of the restitution statute. For instance, it seems that police investigations could be compromised or that some victims would not be able to participate in predispositional investigations per their rights under Minn. Stat. The district court properly ordered appellant to pay restitution to the victim's mother for costs associated with assisting the victim in exercising her rights as a crime victim.