Court Opinion

ID: 9575269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:12:39.91673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:06.778439
License: Public Domain

*678Alexander, C.J.
(dissenting in part) — While I agree with the majority insofar as they conclude that David Hunotte should be required to pay restitution for the broken car window and damaged speakers, I do not agree that Hunotte should be held financially responsible for the damage that was caused to Stem's automobile during the car chase that followed the theft of Stem's speakers. In my judgment, a reasonable person would not foresee that Stem would experience the loss that he did suffer at the hands of Hunotte's companion, Swain, as a consequence of Hunotte's criminal behavior. The relationship between Hunotte's criminal act and the loss to Stem is too attenuated to justify an order requiring payment of all of the restitution Stem seeks. I, therefore, respectfully dissent in part.