Opinion ID: 2162163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Determining Restitution Preponderance of Evidence

Text: Benton argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution portion of the Superior Court's sentencing order. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows different standards of proof to establish guilt at a criminal trial and to sustain a sentencing order. [12] At a criminal trial, the burden is on the State to present evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [13] At sentencing, restitution may be based on those factors which are established by a preponderance of the evidence. [14] The Superior Court ordered that Benton pay restitution in the total amount of $21,450.65: $5,994.65 for the actual amounts that she was found to have stolen from the Association; $6,660 in accounting fees paid by the Association in investigating her embezzlement; $7,460 for reconstruction of the Association's business records; and $1,336 for the litigation aspect of the costs paid by the Association. The record reflects that each component of the Superior Court's restitution order, in the total amount of $21,450.65, was established by a preponderance of the evidence. [15]