Court Opinion

ID: 9575587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:15:08.010934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:35.051355
License: Public Domain

GERBER, Judge,
specially concurring.
Although the majority is insightful in its statutory exegesis, its herculean effort to make sense of the Rico damage statutes leads to a result which, to my mind, is an anomaly if not an absurdity, namely that a civil jury may simultaneously award both treble damages and punitive damages for the same conduct. Treble damages by their very nature are punitive; they seek to deter, to punish, to set an example, precisely as do punitive damages. Admittedly the latest amendment seeking to clarify A.R.S. § 13-2313(N) states that civil damages for racketeering are “not punitive” nor are they “exclusive.” This language does support the majority’s reasoning. However, given the prosecution’s involvement in the enactment and repeated amendment of this statutory labyrinth, a more palatable reading of that statute is not that it authorizes both treble and punitive damages but seeks only to assure that any and all criminal proceedings remain viable despite any kind of civil damage verdict. I concur rather than dissent because the precise language *236of the statute does support the majority’s position, recalling again that statutory language rather than statutory wisdom is our domain—except for eighth amendment concerns, which are not raised here.