 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nixon v. State12/22/1999
>
Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 7-9-102 (LEXIS 1999) directs the sentencing court to order payment of restitution to each victim. AVictim@ is defined in Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 7-9-101(a)(v) (LEXIS 1999):
(v) AVictim@ means a person who has suffered pecuniary damage as a result of a defendant=s criminal activities. An insurer which paid any part of a victim=s pecuniary damages shall be regarded as the victim only if the insurer has no right of subrogation and the insured has no duty to pay the proceeds of restitution to the insurer.
Nixon contends the Division does not qualify as a victim under the restitution statute because it is an insurer with a right of subrogation. Nixon=s argument focuses on whether the Division has a right of subrogation. We agree that Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 27-14-105 (LEXIS 1999) allows subrogation. However, that still leaves the question of whether the Division is an Ainsurer.@
The restitution statute does not define Ainsurer.@ Looking to the logical source for a definition, we turn to the Wyoming Insurance Code which defines Ainsurer@ as Aany person engaged as indemnitor, surety or contractor in the business of entering into contracts of insurance or annuity@ and defines insurance as a contract. Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 26-1-102 (a)(xvi), (xv) (LEXIS 1999). The Division is not in the business of entering into contracts of insurance or annuity and does not enter into contracts with employees or employers for insurance. The Insurance Code does not purport to govern the workers= compensation system. Further, the Division was required to pay Deputy Urman=s medical expenses which resulted from Nixon=s assault. It would be against public policy to allow a criminal defendant to avoid responsibility for damages he caused merely because the injured party was acting within the scope of his employment. Therefore, we hold the Division is not an insurer for purposes of the restitution statute, and the trial court=s order is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
We are convinced the trial court ensured Nixon received a fair trial before impartial jurors. The evidence was sufficient to permit a rational jury to find Nixon intended the actions which caused injury to Deputy Urman. For purposes of the restitution statute, the Workers= Compensation Division qualifies as a victim because it is not an insurer. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all respects.
|