Opinion ID: 1118589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the trial court erred in requiring defendant to pay restitution on criminal charges which were dismissed.

Text: Idaho Criminal Rule 33(d) prohibits as a condition of probation `any requirements of the contribution of money or property to any charity or other non-governmental organization.' The District Court first determined that it could only order restitution on the two matters that the defendant pled guilty to. The Court specifically therein said `... the Court has no power to order this defendant to pay restitution on charges that were dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. ' Nevertheless, the Court then promptly proceeded to order the Defendant to pay the disputed debt on a dismissed charge, that being the Kruse Insurance restitution. When this was brought to the Court's attention in a Rule 35 motion the Court refused to modify the sentence and sternly informed the Defendant that his potential probation would depend upon him paying `restitution to all victims who suffered monetary damages as a result of the defendant's conduct, or the court will relinquish jurisdiction in this matter.' (emphasis added) The defendant had pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him. The State dismissed all but two charges relating to obliterating vehicle serial numbers. There was no plea bargain relating to restitution. If the Defendant had been required to go to trial on the charges which were dismissed, and had been found not guilty, he would not have had to pay restitution. Dismissal is akin to acquittal. It is therefore totally unjust to punish him for suspected but unproven (and dismissed) crimes. Defense counsel argued this point to the trial court.  Restitution may be a valid issue in plea negotiations, but it is not proper to accept a defendant's plea after negotiation and then argue that he cannot have probation without paying restitution for every crime of which he is suspected. The Defendant agreed to cooperate with the police as part of his plea agreement. Then when he revealed the information they sought, and admitted to some involvement in illegal activities, the prosecution sought to require restitution on those activities. That kind of action on the part of the prosecution does not provide much incentive to a Defendant to fully cooperate! The police officer with whom the Defendant spoke admitted that the information used against the defendant admitted that the in the sentencing came from conversations he had with the Defendant: `Q. And did this conversation with Mr. Russell take place as part of an agreement whereby he would agree to clear up some matters concerning thefts and other criminal activities?' `A. Yes.' Restitution became a bitter issue in this case. The Defendant denied wrongdoing, for example, in the alleged insurance fraud. But the Court saw his reluctance to pay restitution as an indication of a bad attitude, and with the Defendant having a `bad attitude,' the Court would not grant probation. When the Defendant relented, and agreed to pay all `victims,' the Court granted probation. If in fact the Defendant was innocent of insurance fraud, the Court's action surely could do nothing but create a bad attitude in the Defendant toward the `justice' he was having to swallow.