Court Opinion

ID: 9852353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:29:04.542404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:26.147750
License: Public Domain

Mikell, Judge,
concurring specially.
I write separately to mention that one purpose of restitution, in addition to compensating the victim, is to impose punishment on the offender. It could be that, under the circumstances of the case at bar, an adequate and competent proof of the amount of restitution may not be possible. For example, the six citizens who testified at the sentencing hearing may not be willing to return. Moreover, with some kinds of property crimes, it may never be possible to present the required evidence of the fair market value of the damaged or stolen property. In such instances, the trial court may be faced with an affirmed sentence of probation but without restitution in an amount adequate to punish the offender. In such circumstances, the trial court should be given the authority to reconsider the sentence and, if appropriate, to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. See Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.10.
The difficulty of proving the damages in restitution cases with the precision required by OCGA § 17-14-2 (2) and the case law is well illustrated by the case at bar. Damages are defined by the cited statute as “all damages which a victim could recover against an offender in a civil action . . . except punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering. . . .’’As any practitioner can testify, proof of damages in a civil lawsuit in Georgia can be a highly technical chore requiring careful trial preparation and evidence gathering. To achieve restitution in a criminal case involving property, the state must present competent evidence showing the “fair market value” of the stolen or damaged property at the time of the loss. But in the case at bar, the victims’ losses were the replacement value of the stolen items, not their fair market value after use, because, as is ever more common in *621our modem consumer society, used items cannot be purchased or can be located only after expenditure of more time and money than would be needed to obtain a new replacement item.
The current statutory scheme is especially inadequate when the items to be replaced are unique. For example, a victim testified on cross-examination as follows regarding the theft of an in-dash compact disc player and 75 CDs:
Q. It was not new anymore; correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. It had been used?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you priced what it would cost you to purchase a used CD player used roughly the same amount on the open market?
A. I’m not aware of any place that sells used car CD players.
Q. Have you priced that or not?
A. I’ve priced the new one, which is cheaper than the one I bought. The same CD player is cheaper now than it was when I bought it originally.
Q. Then you have not priced a used one then?
A. No, sir. I’m not aware of any place that sells used car CD players.
Q. Have you gone to any pawn shop and looked at their price of used CD players?
A. Yes, sir. I have gone to the pawn shops and they told me they do not deal in car CD players because most of them are stolen.
Q. The 75 CDs you priced at $13.88 each, is that the cost of purchasing them?
A. That’s a cost of a new one, yes.
Q. Have you priced what it would cost for 75 of the same CDs used?
A. Sir, I don’t think you will find these CDs. They were contemporary Christian CDs and the new Christian punk rock CDs and I’m not aware of anywhere that sells them at all. You get them mostly through the Internet and at concerts and places like this.
Q. So you have not priced what 75 used CDs would cost that are the same type?
A. No, I have not.
Under the current statutes, the state would have to present competent evidence of the fair market value of the victim’s Christian CDs. Since the CDs are not readily available for repurchasing, this burden *622would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to meet.
Decided July 16, 2001.
Grist & Brock, Joel M. Grist, Jr., for appellant.
Howard Z. Simms, District Attorney, Graham A. Thorpe, Myra H. Kline, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
The law governing restitution to victims of crime needs to be uncoupled from the technical requirements of proving damages in civil lawsuits if the courts are to carry out the public policy declared by the legislature: OCGA § 17-14-1. “Declaration of Public Policy. It is declared to be the policy of this state that restitution to their victims by those found guilty of crimes is a primary concern of the criminal justice system.” Unless some means can be found to make the rules for proving restitution less hypertechnical, the “primary concern of the criminal justice system” may be frustrated. Indeed, the high difficulty of proof may incline trial courts to eschew ordering probation and restitution and instead to sentence offenders to straight confinement for nonviolent crimes.
The General Assembly should consider revising OCGA §§ 17-14-2 (2) and 17-14-9 to provide that in ordering restitution for damage to, or loss of, property, a court may consider the replacement value or the fair market value or the cost of repairs when determining the amount of a victim’s loss. This easing of the burden of proving a victim’s loss would not work an injustice to the offender because the amount of restitution to be ordered would still be restrained by the required consideration of the factors specified in OCGA § 17-14-10, including the financial condition of the offender and his dependents and the probable future earning capacity of the offender.
In summary, I agree with the majority that our present statutes and precedents require at least a partial reversal of the restitution order.