 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hummert3/25/2004
t rather, by the scope the legislature intended to give the term "victim." See State v. Foy, 176 Ariz. 166, 170, 859 P.2d 789, 793 (App. 1993) (in construing restitution statutes, court reviewed statutory scheme by examining legislative intent, the statutory language, the objectives to be accomplished, and the evils to be remedied).
The purpose of the restitution statutes is to make victims whole. See State v. Lindsley, 191 Ariz. 195, 197, 953 P.2d 1248, 1250 (App. 1997). In particular, § 13-603(C) provides in relevant part:
If a person is convicted of an offense, the court shall require the convicted person to make restitution to the person who is the victim of the crime or to the immediate family of the victim if the victim has died, in the full amount of the economic loss as determined by the court and in the manner as determined by the court or the court's designee pursuant to chapter 8 of this title.
Section 13-105(14), A.R.S., defines "economic loss" as "any loss incurred by a person as a result of the commission of an offense." The definition of "person" for this title includes a "government" and "a governmental authority." § 13-105(26).
Although the term "victim" is not defined in the statute, the supreme court interpreted the scope of § 13-603(C) in State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27, 39 P.3d 1131 (2002). The court upheld, in part, a restitution award against a contractor who had been convicted of contracting without a license, a victimless crime. Id. at . In its analysis, the court focused on the relationship between the criminal conduct and the claimed economic loss, noting that the test is whether the particular criminal conduct directly caused an economic loss. Id. at , 14; see also State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 218, 220, 920 P.2d 784, 786 (App. 1996) (defendant convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, a victimless crime, could be required to pay restitution for injuries suffered in accident if act of leaving aggravated injuries).
Additionally, in State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 409, 411, 909 P.2d 476, 478 (App. 1995), the court held that the owner of a car that had been damaged in an accident caused by an impaired driver was a victim for purposes of the Victims' Bill of Rights. Although the defendant argued that aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant is a "victimless" crime, especially considering the driver of the damaged car had sustained no personal injuries, the court found that a victim need not suffer personal injury to be a crime victim. Id. at 410-11, 909 P.2d at 477-78. Accordingly, even a "victimless" crime can result in a victim entitled to a restitution award.
Under this analysis, the restitution statutes do not require that a specific victim be named in a statute, indictment, or verdict form. A "victimless crime" may still support an award of restitution so long as the criminal act directly results in economic damages to the person receiving the award.
In this case, Hummert was convicted of "knowingly escaping or attempting to escape from... an adult correctional facility." A.R.S. § 13-2503(A)(1). ADOC is charged with supervising and administering the adult correctional facilities of the state. See A.R.S. §§ 41-1602 and 41-1604. Because ADOC expended significant amounts of time and money in the effort to recapture Hummert in direct response to his escape, the trial court properly awarded ADOC restitution.
CONCLUSION
Hummert's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Chief Judge
M. JAN FLOREZ, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|