Court Opinion

ID: 9626756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:23:22.296079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:33.354709
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s holding and conclusions and write separately only to expand on the discussion of a defendant’s ability to pay restitution in relation to the award granted by the trial court.
The statute governing the calculation of restitution states as follows:
In determining the amount of restitution to be made, the court shall take into consideration the resources of the defendant including all real and personal property owned by the defendant and the income derived from the property, the defendant’s ability to earn, the defendant’s obligation to support dependents, and any other matters that pertain to the defendant’s ability to make restitution, but the court is not required to make findings of fact *603or conclusions of law on these matters. The amount of restitution must be limited to that supported by the record, and the court may order partial restitution when it appears that the damage or loss caused by the offense is greater than that which the defendant is able to pay. If the court orders partial restitution, the court shall state on the record the reasons for such an order.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.36(a) (2005) (emphasis added). While the statute makes mandatory the court’s consideration of a defendant’s resources and ability to pay, it simply permits the court to order partial restitution where it appears the defendant cannot pay the full amount. That is, while the court is required to consider the defendant’s ability to pay, it is not required to modify the restitution amount on that basis. Indeed, if it does so modify the amount, it is required to specifically state its justification for so doing.
Further, the purpose of ordering that an injured party be paid restitution is surely to make the victim whole2 again in terms of economic loss. Although our case law does not explicitly state this purpose, a great many other states that have considered this concept have. See, e.g., Fore v. State, 858 So. 2d 982, 985 (Ala. App. 2003) (“ ‘one of the purposes of restitution is to make the victim whole’ ”); Dorris v. State, 656 P.2d 578, 584 (Alaska App. 1982) (“the purpose of the restitution statute is to make the victim whole”); State v. Reynolds, 832 P.2d 695, 698 (Ariz. App. Div. 1 1992) (“a trial court is required to determine the full amount of the victim’s loss to make the victim whole”); Simmons v. State, 205 S.W.3d 194, 197 (Ark. App. 2005) (“[t]he purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole with respect to the financial injury suffered as a result of the victim’s crime”) (emphasis omitted); Cumhuriyet v. People, 615 P.2d 724, 726 (Colo. 1980) (“ [restitution... is intended to make the victim whole”); Gonzalez v. State, 948 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 2007) (“the trial court is granted discretion in determining a restitution amount to make the victim whole”). The only way to truly make victims whole under this statute is to calculate the amount of restitution to reflect the victim’s economic loss. Modifying that amount based on a defendant’s ability to pay transfers focus from the damage done to the victim to the defendant’s financial concerns.
*604Take for example a victim who is assaulted and has medical and expenses and loss of income totaling $50,000.00. At the time the restitution award is calculated, the defendant has zero or a token amount of assets or income. If the award is calculated based primarily on his ability to pay, the restitution award will be set at zero or, at best, a minor sum. Five years later, when the defendant is released from prison, he finds employment with an annual salary of $50,000.00, or inherits $500,000.00 from a relative, or otherwise obtains a substantial amount of money in a lump sum or steady stream. It would be patently unfair for the defendant to have all these assets but not allow the victim to recover from the defendant. The victim could theoretically sue to pursue those assets, but at that point the statute of limitations would have run; regardless, the victim should not have to again bring suit or risk losing her rights, given that she has already been to court when restitution was originally set in the criminal case.
Thus, the clear language of the statute and the policy reasons behind its creation both show that a defendant’s ability to pay should be of secondary concern in calculating the amount of restitution to be paid. As such, I believe the best practice is for courts to calculate the amount of restitution based primarily, though not solely, on the victim’s economic loss.
A restitution award based in large part on a defendant’s ability to pay deprives the award of any semblance of actual restitution. I believe the legislature intended that courts should consider calculating restitution awards to reflect the full amount of economic damage done. If the courts focus on a defendant’s ability to pay on the day of the judgment, most victims will receive little to no money as restitution. I do not interpret that to be the intent of the Legislature.
I agree with the majority that the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) is instructive on this point, providing as it does that “[t]he burden demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant’s dependents, shall be on the defendant.” I believe further that the duty of the trial court is simply to consider all evidence presented by a defendant concerning his ability to pay, but not to seek out and demand that evidence where a defendant does not produce it.
This Court has on the same date produced two opinions3 on this point of law. For the sake of clarity and consistency, I believe the *605issue of restitution to a victim by the defendant merits review by our Legislature.

. As in this Court’s previous holdings, the term “whole again” here refers to remuneration for economic damages such as medical bills and loss of wages, not compensation for pain and suffering. See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 158 N.C. App. 235, 241, 580 S.E.2d 386, 390 (2003) (concluding that “pain and suffering is an impermissible basis for restitution” under the applicable statutes).

. See State v. Person, 187 N.C. App. 512, 653 S.E.2d 560 (2007).