Court Opinion

ID: 9857083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:15:13.523943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:59.104564
License: Public Domain

GERBER, Judge,
dissenting.
I would concur with the majority were it not for the Merrill case. In Merrill, a unanimous panel of this same court stated that the mandate of A.R.S. § 13-603.C is “best fulfilled” if the term “victim” includes any “entity suffering the economic loss resulting from the [defendant’s] criminal activity.” Merrill concludes that the legislature adopted an “expansive” definition of “victim” by requiring restitution “to those suffering economic loss.”
Under Merrill’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 13-603. C, I conclude that we are bound by this “expansive” language to view the aggrieved motel owner as a “victim” deserving restitution. This legal precedent matches the common sense meaning of “victim” as anyone suffering injury or damage from crime. For these reasons, I dissent from the narrower holding of the majority.