Court Opinion

ID: 9543131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:42:26.753661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:45.453976
License: Public Domain

*488CLARK, J.
I concur in the judgment, but would qualify the statement that acquittal of the theft of the $1,278 “[o]rdinarily . . . would preclude inclusion of that item in the restitution order.” (Ante, p. 487.) I assume arguendo that the acquittal here would have precluded ordering restitution of the sum involved in that count, but for the fact that “additional circumstances were developed in the unusually prolonged probation hearing.” (Id.) However, when the' preponderance of the evidence produced at the trial itself supports such an order, additional evidence need not be presented at the probation hearing.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied December 17, 1975. Wright, C. J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.