Restitution in Utah Criminal Defense
In addition to the financial burden of paying restitution, complete
payment of restitution and other financial obligations owed in a Utah
criminal case can also be a prerequisite to obtaining an
expungement,
402
reduction, or pardon. Limiting the total amount of
restitution initially ordered as part of the court's sentencing order
can have significant benefits. If you are facing
criminal
charges in Utah,
contact
us today to see how we can help.
Are there limits on what a court can order as restitution in
a Utah criminal case?
The Utah Court of Appeals' 2017 opinion in
State v. Gibson
addressed one of the limits to what a sentencing court can order as
restitution in a criminal case. Specifically, the court looked at the
issue of whether a criminal sentencing court can order a defendant to
pay restitution for damage or loss resulting from conduct that was not
admitted by the defendant or conduct for which the defendant was not
convicted.
Gibson
involved a theft of approximately 200 feet of coper wiring and
accompanying brass fittings from a electric power substation. The power
company put the total loss suffered as a result of the theft (including
lost materials and other property damage) at around $13,000. The person
who committed this initial theft was never identified, but in a plea
agreement entered into with the prosecutor, the defendant admitted that
on the day following the original theft he had sold a matching length
of copper wiring and fittings to a metal scrap dealer,
having reason to believe the items had been
stolen, and that the metal was valued at less than $500. At sentencing,
the district court ordered the defendant to pay the full $13,000 as
restitution.
The Court of Appeals in
Gibson
was asked to determine whether the district court was legally
justified in ordering the defendant to pay $13,000 in restitution to
the power company even though he only admitted responsibility only to
selling less than $500 worth of stolen property, not the initial theft
of the copper wiring and fittings. The controlling statute on this
issue is Utah Code 76-3-201(4)(a) which states that “when a
person is convicted of criminal activity that has resulted in pecuniary
damages, in addition to any other sentence it may impose, the court
shall order that the defendant make restitution to the victims, or for
conduct for which the defendant has agreed to make restitution as part
of a plea agreement."
The district court reasoned that even though it was not known who
committed the initial theft, the defendant’s selling stolen materials
was “as effectual.” However, Utah’s restitution statute,
criminal activity for which restitution can be ordered is limited to
conduct for which the defendant was convicted (by plea or by verdict)
and “criminal conduct for which the defendant admits responsibility to
the sentencing court.” In
State
v. Mast, 2001 UT App 402, the court affirmed both that 1)
“a defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution for criminal
activities for which the defendant did not admit responsibility, was
not convicted, or did not agree to pay restitution,” and 2) when
determining whether a defendant has admitted responsibility, the
sentencing court must not make inferences about the defendant’s
culpability, but must focus on admissions made by the defendant.
Responsibility must be “firmly established, much like a guilty plea.”
In
Gibson,
the defendant did not admit responsibility for the initial theft.
The State argued on appeal that under Utah’s consolidated theft statute
the defendant’s guilty plea to theft by receiving stolen property was
enough to establish his answerability for the initial theft because all
forms of theft are considered a single offense. The Court of Appeals
disagreed, reasoning instead that although the statute allows a
prosecutor to present a general theft offense and prove any type of
theft under the consolidated theft statute, it does not allow a
conviction of one type of theft to carry with it admission or
responsibility to all forms of theft.
The State additionally argued on appeal that the defendant's sale of
the stolen materials is the but-for cause of the power company's
losses. The courts may use a “modified but-for test” when
determining the extent of an appropriate restitution award, and when
analyzing a but-for causation question, the court must “inquire as to
what would have occurred if the [defendant] had not engaged in
the…conduct.” The State argued in essence that the original theft would
not have occurred "but for" the secondary market for stolen metals that
was supported by the defendant's sale of the stolen property. Again,
the Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning instead that because the
initial theft of materials from the power company had already occurred,
the after-the-fact sale of stolen property by the defendant could not
be the "but for" cause of that initial theft.
The Court of Appeals held that the restitution award ordered by the
sentencing court was not justified. The defendant had admitted only to
selling stolen property valued at less than $500. Because he did not
admit responsibility for the initial theft and did not otherwise agree
to a higher amount of restitution, the restitution order exceeded “that
prescribed by law.”
Finding a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Utah

Facing
criminal prosecution in Utah can be intimidating, and the consequences
of a
felony
or
misdemeanor
conviction can be serious. If you are charged with a crime, the
assistance
of an
experienced
criminal
defense attorney
can be key to ensuring that
your rights are protected.
Contact us today to
see what the right attorney can do for you.