Court Opinion

ID: 9709818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:55:27.27663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.763791
License: Public Domain

TOMLJANOYICH, Justice
(dissenting).
Because I disagree with the majority that restitution may be ordered in amounts in excess of those the jury found to have been stolen, I respectfully dissent.
Restitution is part of the sentence which may be imposed upon conviction of a crime.
Upon conviction of a felony and compliance with the other provisions of this chapter the court, if it imposes sentence, may sentence the defendant to the extent authorized by law as follows:
[[Image here]]
.... (5) To payment of court-ordered restitution in addition to either imprisonment or payment of a fine, or both; ...
Minn.Stat. § 609.10 (1994) (emphasis added).
Similarly, restitution is authorized as a sentence for a misdemeanor:
Upon conviction of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor the court, if sentence is imposed, may, to the extent authorized by law, sentence the defendant: ....
[[Image here]]
(4) To payment of court-ordered restitution in addition to either imprisonment or payment of a fine, or both;
[[Image here]]
Minn.Stat. § 609.125 (1994) (emphasis added).
Thus it is clear that restitution is part of a criminal sentence. A sentence is defined as “[t]he judgment formally pronounced by the court or judge upon the defendant after his conviction in a criminal prosecution, imposing the punishment to be inflicted.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1362 (6th ed. 1990). It seems elementary that punishment may only be ordered for a crime of which the defendant is convicted.
The restitution statute is broad and recognizes that a victim of a crime should not be twice victimized; first, when the crime is initially committed, and again when they try to recover for economic losses suffered. But the statute limits those amounts to those losses sustained “as a result of the offense.” Minn.Stat. § 611A045, subd. 1 (1992). Therein lies the problem with the majority’s reasoning, the offense proven at trial involved $2,500 from each of two victims. Restitution was ordered far in excess of those amounts. Restitution should be ordered only for the losses as a result of the offense proven at trial and those that flow from that offense.
I acknowledge that the burden of proof in a civil trial is different from that in a criminal trial. Putting aside the right to a jury trial, to permit the trial judge to conduct his own civil trial within a criminal trial is inappropriate.
If a defendant is tried for murder and found not guilty of the murder, but guilty of some minor offense, it would be inconceivable to permit the judge to conclude the murder had been proven to her satisfaction and order wrongful death restitution. Today’s decision permits such a result.