Opinion ID: 1274735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Victim's Right to Restitution

Text: The most troublesome aspect of the majority opinion is its failure to heed the statutory and constitutional rights of Mr. Nakamoto, the victim of Moen's cruel assault. Victims of crime and their survivors have standing in the criminal justice and sentencing process, and, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, have a right to restitution. Former RCW 9.94A.142(2) provides restitution shall be ordered whenever the defendant is convicted of offenses involving personal injury or property loss unless extraordinary circumstances exist which make restitution inappropriate in the court's judgment. RCW 7.69.030 requires the state to make reasonable efforts to ensure rights to crime victims, survivors and witnesses, including the right to entry of an order of restitution by the court in all felony cases, even when the offender is sentenced to confinement, unless extraordinary circumstances exist which make restitution inappropriate in the court's judgment. RCW 7.69.030(15). See also 1985 Final Legislative Report at 84 (victims have right to restitution absent extraordinary circumstances). The Legislature recognized victims' and survivors' rights in RCW 7.69.010: In recognition of the severe and detrimental impact of crime on victims, survivors of victims, and witnesses of crime and the civic and moral duty of victims, survivors of victims, and witnesses of crimes to fully and voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies, and in further recognition of the continuing importance of such citizen cooperation to state and local law enforcement efforts and the general effectiveness and well-being of the criminal justice system of this state, the legislature declares its intent, in this chapter, to grant to the victims of crime and the survivors of such victims a significant role in the criminal justice system. The legislature further intends to ensure that all victims and witnesses of crime are treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, and sensitivity; and that the rights extended in this chapter to victims, survivors of victims, and witnesses of crime are honored and protected by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded criminal defendants. (Emphasis added.) Victims' rights were incorporated into our Constitution through adoption in 1989 of a victims' rights provision. WASH. CONST., art. I, § 35 (amend. 84) grants basic and fundamental rights to victims and survivors; and seeks to ensure victims a meaningful role in the criminal justice system and accord them due dignity and respect. In State v. Gentry, 125 Wash.2d 570, 628-29, 888 P.2d 1105, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 131, 133 L.Ed.2d 79 (1995), we recognized this amendment speaks powerfully to the fundamental principle of restoring what is taken from a victim of crime. In construing RCW 9.94A.142, particularly in the present case where Moen agreed to pay restitution, we must give voice to the rights of crime victims. [3] Moen agreed to pay restitution in open court to enlist jury sympathy at trial. Moen agreed in open court at sentencing to settle the amount of restitution through negotiation with the State. He did not object to the restitution order. His lawyer signed an agreed order of restitution. No extraordinary circumstances are present, as required under the statute, to justify depriving Garrett Nakamoto, his family and insurers, of their right to restitution of some $16,566, as part of the costs of the severe injuries he suffered. Given the unambiguous statutory and constitutional policies affording simple justice to crime victims like Mr. Nakamoto, we are compelled to conclude Moen waived any statutory time limits for entry of the order of restitution. We should not permit Moen to victimize his victim yet again. [4] DURHAM, C.J., and DOLLIVER and GUY, JJ., concur.