Court Opinion

ID: 9797836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:30:14.741387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:29.418554
License: Public Domain

COATS, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
In a detailed order, Judge Collins made several factual findings to support her restitution award, and Demers does not contest these findings. Judge Collins found that the $5,000 restitution award was to reimburse the Folk Festival for the efforts of two of its board members to audit and reconstruct the financial records. The audit was required to reconstruct the books after Demers's theft. The audit would have been unnecessary but for the theft. Had the Folk Festival hired accountants to audit the books and reconstruct the records, it would have been far more expensive for the board. By conducting the audit with volunteers, the Folk Festival saved itself (and Demers if he pays the restitution award) a substantial amount of money. Judge Collins reasoned that if the Folk Festival could recover restitution for money it paid to accountants to conduct an audit, it was reasonable to allow it to recover for the value of the time spent by the volunteers. Judge Collins's reasoning appears to me to be sound.
Alaska Statute 12.55.045 and AS 12.55.100 authorize a sentencing court to make restitution awards, either as part of the defendant's sentence or as a condition of probation. The *5Alaska legislature clearly intended courts to construe AS 12,55.045 and AS 12.55.100 broadly to allow courts to order restitution to all persons injured by the defendant's conduct1 Alaska Statute 12.55.045 directs a sentencing court that orders restitution to take into account the "public policy that favors requiring criminals to compensate for damages and injury to their victims.2 One of the purposes of AS 12.55.045(a) is "to make full restitution available to all persons who have been injured as a result of eriminal behavior, to the greatest extent possible."3 This expressed legislative intent seems to me to support the conclusion that the legislature favors restitution awards as part of criminal sentences.
Judge Collins's restitution award in this case appears to me to be consistent with this legislative policy. The Folk Festival was clearly injured by Demers's thefts. But for the volunteer efforts of the board of directors, the cost of reconstructing the financial records of the Folk Festival would have been much greater. To say that a victim can recover restitution only when he hires someone else to undo the damage caused by a criminal act appears to violate the policy set by the legislature. Moreover, as a separate policy consideration, if we only allow a victim to recover restitution if he hires a third party to undo the damage, we actually encourage victims to increase the amount of their actual loss.
On the other hand, if the victim of a crime, rather than hiring someone else, spends his own time and effort to fix damages caused by a criminal act and can clearly establish the value of his efforts, I see no reason to preclude a court from awarding restitution. Such a rule seems to me to be consistent with the legislative policy of these statutes and the past interpretations by this court. Accordingly, I would uphold the restitution award. I therefore dissent.

. See Lonis v. State, 998 P.2d 441, 447 (Alaska App.2000).

. AS 12.55.045(a)(1).

. Ch. 71, § 1, SLA 1992 (emphasis added).