 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Heintz10/25/2005
In this appeal from an order for restitution resulting from a conviction of third-degree assault, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay restitution to the assault victim for lawn-service costs and to the insurance company that paid the victim's workers'-compensation claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS
On May 16, 2002, while appellant Daniel Dean Heintz and the victim, T.M., were doing construction work on the roof of Northfield Hospital, an argument between the two escalated into a physical altercation. T.M. sustained serious injuries to his face and eye, requiring multiple surgeries and significant rehabilitation.
Heintz was charged with and pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (2002). The district court issued an order for restitution requiring Heintz to pay T.M. $3,825 for lawn-service costs that T.M. incurred while he was injured and to pay Zurich North America Recovery Center (Zurich) $34,068.19 as reimbursement for its payment of T.M.'s workers'-compensation claim. Heintz challenged the order for restitution. After separate hearings on the two claims, the district court issued orders upholding the restitution awards. Heintz challenges on appeal the restitution awards.
DECISION
A crime victim has the right to restitution as part of the disposition of a criminal charge that results in conviction. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2002). The district court has wide discretion to order reasonable restitution, but there must be a factual basis establishing the victim's loss. State v. Chapman, 362 N.W.2d 401, 404 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. May 1, 1985). If an order for restitution is challenged, the state must establish the amount of the loss sustained by the victim by a preponderance of the evidence. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a) (2002).
Heintz first challenges the evidentiary basis of the restitution order requiring him to pay T.M. $3,825 for lawn-service expenses. He argues that the state did not submit sufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of T.M.'s claim or to show a causal connection between T.M.'s injuries and his inability to maintain his lawn.
At one of the restitution hearings, the state submitted a $3,825 lawn-service invoice received by T.M., which, the state represented, is the result of a $325 weekly lawn-service charge that T.M. incurred during the three-month period after the assault. For reasons that do not appear in the record, T.M. left the hearing before testifying. The hearing continued without T.M., and the state argued that T.M. owns a parcel of land with six acres of lawn and that the injuries he received from the assault made it impossible for him to maintain his lawn for three months.
A district court may impose sanctions for "any out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime." Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a). But a victim's losses must be directly caused by a defendant's criminal conduct. State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103, 105 (Minn. App. 1999). Whether the district court here abused its discretion depends on whether there is evidence that the lawn-care expenses were directly caused by the assault. Minnesota courts apply a but-for analysis when considering whether a victim's economic harm was directly caused by a defendant's criminal conduct. See, e.g., In re Welfare of D.D.G., 532 N.W.2d 279, 282-83 (Minn. App. 1995) (upholding restitution order based, in part, on $500 reward paid by school to a person who aided school's investigation of a threat), review denied (Minn. Aug. 30, 1995); State v. O'Brien, 459 N.W.2d
Page 1 2 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|