Court Opinion

ID: 9757275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:28:34.982718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:36.819146
License: Public Domain

WATHEN, Justice,
with whom McKU-SICK, Chief Justice, and VIOLETTE, Justice, join, concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the Court’s opinion but I write separately to delineate the extent to which I follow the Court’s rationale in Part I. On the facts of this case, I agree that the Superior Court had no authority to require that the defendant make restitution to a victim not named in the indictment. I would come to the opposite conclusion, however, if the record contained evidence of defendant’s unequivocal consent, or agreement as part of a plea bargain. There are numerous occasions where, with the consent of the parties, the courts include restitution orders for the benefit of acknowledged victims not named in an indictment. I would not interpret the statute to prohibit this practice. To do otherwise, would be to exalt form over substance.