Court Opinion

ID: 9543912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:24.879473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:27.188780
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Judge.
Charles S. Dupin (Dupin) appeals the Tippecanoe Superior Court's order requiring him to pay restitution for lost wages and other expenses to those persons injured in a collision resulting from his driving while intoxicated as a condition of probation after he pled guilty to criminal charges of four counts of operating a motor vehicle with .10% blood alcohol or more resulting in bodily injury and one count of the same resulting in death.
The sole issue in this cause, restated, is whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Dupin to pay the victims of his crime $81,680 without crediting against that sum a prior $100,000 settlement paid to the victims by his insurance company to settle civil claims arising from the same transaction.
We affirm.
In September, 1985, Dupin, a Purdue University student, was driving while intoxicated, i.e., his blood alcohol level at that time exceeded .10 percent. While doing so, he rear ended the Sausman vehicle, it crossed the center line and collided head on with the Thomas family automobile. Mrs. Sausman died and four others were seriously injured. In a criminal action, Dupin pled guilty to one count of operating a vehicle with .10 percent blood alcohol or more resulting in death, and four counts of operating a vehicle with .10 percent blood alcohol or more resulting in serious bodily injury, and the trial court sentenced him to six consecutive prison terms totaling 13 years, suspended. The court further placed Dupin on supervised probation with the requirement he make restitution to the victims in the total sum of $31,680, as one of the conditions thereof.
In a civil action, Dupin's insurance company paid its policy limits, namely, $100,-000, $75,000 to the Sausmans and $25,000 to the Thomases to settle their civil claims arising from the collision.
We learn from the appellee's brief and the record this settlement stipulated the releases given by the victims in return for settlement by the surety was to "have no application to any obligation to pay restitution to said defendants imposed upon the said Charles S. Dupin by the Superior Court of Tippecanoe County in Cause No. S-5382 entitled State of Indiana vs. Charles S. Dupin." (R. 42-44).
Dupin appeals.
He argues he should have the benefit of a set off of the $100,000 insurance settlement against the $31,680 restitution payment required as a condition of probation by the trial court. Dupin is wrong.
The trial court correctly followed the principles set down in Miller v. State (1986), Ind., 502 N.E.2d 92. There, Miller *331argued because he had been discharged in bankruptcy, the trial court was precluded from ordering restitution as a condition of probation. Our Supreme Court determined the matter against Miller, saying
Probation is a criminal sanction aimed at providing an offender with the opportunity to rehabilitate himself without being confined to a correctional institution. (Citing cases). Restitution, as a condition of probation, can be an instrumental part of the offender's rehabilitation.... The primary goal of restitution is, therefore, to vindicate the rights of society, not to compensate the offender's victim, although that is certainly a result of the restitution. (Citing case). Thus, an order of restitution is as much a part of a criminal sentence as a fine or other penalty.
Miller, 502 N.E.2d at 95. The same principle applies here. Settlements in civil cases ean have no effect upon sentences meted out in criminal cases.
The trial court incorrectly determined the collateral source rules applied here. Under that rule, compensation for loss received from a collateral source, independent of the wrongdoer, as from insurance, cannot be set up by the wrongdoer in mitigation of damages. Alderidge v. Abram & Hawkins Excavating Co., Inc. (1985), Ind.App., 474 N.E.2d 107; Evans v. Breeden (1975), 164 Ind.App. 558, 330 N.E.2d 116. Here, Dupin's insurance company paid the settlement money, not one with whom the injured parties had contracted. The source of these funds was one in which Dupin had an interest, not one collateral to Dupin. Powers v. Ellis (1952), 231 Ind. 273, 108 N.E.2d 132, 135. Further, this is a eriminal case, not one civil in nature, and civil doctrines have no application. We believe the trial court meant to say civil settlements, whatever the source, have no bearing upon sentencing in criminal cases, as we have noted above. The error, if any is harmless.
A partial civil settlement is not a substitute for restitution in criminal proceedings. People v. Clifton (1985), 2d Dist., 172 Cal.App.3d 1165, 219 Cal.Rptr. 904; State v. Hart (1985), 299 Ore. 128, 699 P.2d 1113. Probation is a matter for the trial court's sound discretion. In specific cases, a trial court may determine restitution is necessary to correct a defendant's behavior to impress upon him the magnitude of the loss he has caused and his responsibility to make good that loss as completely as possible. These are the traditional goals in sentencing a defendant. Miller, supra; Sales v. State (1984), Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 1336; Ewing v. State (1974), 160 Ind.App. 138, 310 N.E.2d 571.
Finally, Dupin's insurance company and the victims specifically contracted against the set-off for which Dupin so earnestly contends, as a condition of their settlement. Thus, in addition to the trial court's exclusive authority to deal with restitution as a condition of probation in criminal cases, the parties involved have specifically contract ed against Dupin's relief by way of set-off against the restitution payment ordered by the lower court.
We do not believe the trial court committed fundamental error by sentencing Dupin on five separate counts, one for each of the five victims, as we would if the Wilkoff and Theriault cases cited in the concurring opinion were the law of Indiana. Indiana follows a different rule when injuries to the person rather than merely theft of property is involved in criminal cases. We believe it apparent Clem v. State (1873), 42 Ind. 420, is no longer the law, in light of Johnson v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 932, 937, and Randall v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 916, 931-932, both unanimous Indiana Supreme Court decisions holding separate sentences may be meted out in multiple victim cases, although the injuries occur because of one transaction. Also see Hurst v. State (1984), Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 19, 21-22 (drug sales to two undercover officers at the same time supports a finding of guilty as to two separate offenses).
In sum, Indiana applies the "one larceny" rule strictly to offenses against property cases. Where personal injury or death, or the threat thereof is involved, each injury although resulting from the *332same transaction, supports an individual count and a separate finding of guilty as to each person injured or killed, albeit the law may be otherwise in other states.
Affirmed.
MILLER, P.J., concurs.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs with opinion.