Court Opinion

ID: 9536849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:08:03.262782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:24.939790
License: Public Domain

EHRLICH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result affirming the adjudication of delinquency and vacating the juvenile court’s order of restitution. I believe, however, contrary to the majority at page 4, supra, that Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated section 8-241(0(1) does define the limits of restitution in a delinquency matter, at least in this case where there is no contrary agreement between the state and the juvenile with regard to related but uncharged offenses. The express language of the statute, that the court shall order the delinquent child to “make full or partial restitution to the victim of the offense for which the child *357was adjudicated delinquent,” contemplates for imposition of reimbursement a causal connection between the offense for which the juvenile was declared to be an offender and the victim’s loss. Here, the state conceded that it could prove no causal connection between the criminal trespass, the offense for which E.G. was adjudicated delinquent, and the victim’s economic loss from the theft of personal property and vehicle damage. On this rationale, I join the majority’s disposition.