Court Opinion

ID: 9504812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:58:06.111602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:08.095716
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, believing that we should not remand. As acknowledged by the per curiam opinion, Indiana statutory law requires that an order of restitution be “based on the actual cost of repair (or replacement if repair is inappropriate).” Ind.Code § 35-50-5-3(a). When on appeal the quantum of evidence presented by the State is found insufficient to satisfy its burden of proof on an issue, permitting the State a second opportunity to overcome its deficiency in proof is inconsistent with principles prohibiting double jeopardy. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988); Lambert v. State, 534 N.E.2d 235, 237 n. 2 (Ind.1989).