In State v. Linares, No. 1 CA-CR 15-0810 (1/01/17), the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed a restitution award because the court held the award was for a cost incurred in the investigation of the crime, and not a cost incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal actions.
In an Arizona criminal case in which the defendant is convicted, the court is required to award restitution to any victims. Restitution is recoverable for a loss which (1) is economic; (2) would not have occurred but for the criminal conduct; and (3) is directly caused by the criminal conduct. The defendant is only liable for expenses that “flow directly from the defendant’s criminal conduct, without the intervention of additional causative factors”.
In the Linares case the defendant was convicted of child abuse as a class 4 felony. As a part of the prosecution the Maricopa County Attorney arranged and paid $550 for a forensic examination by a nurse. The nurse testified at trial as to the results of the examination and conclusions as to causation of injuries observed. The nurse did not provide any medical treatment for the victim and the discharge instructions did not include any reference to further medical treatment.
The court of appeals reversed the award and in doing so made a distinction between costs for medical treatment for a victim, which are recoverable as a restitution award, and investigative costs, which are not. Basically normal costs incurred in the investigation of a possible crime or expenses incurred as a part of normal government activities are not a direct economic loss caused by the crime, and therefore cannot be awarded as restitution. The court gave an example of overtime for police officers attending court, which is a normal cost incurred in a normal governmental activity and therefore cannot be the subject of a restitution award.
The trial court held the forensic examination by the nurse was for both medical as well as investigative purposes, and therefore the award of the $550 cost was appropriate as restitution. However, in its decision the court of appeals held the examination was only for forensic investigative purposes and therefore was too attenuated from the defendant’s criminal acts to be considered as economic loss for the victim; therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s restitution award.
The case may be found at: http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2017/1%20CA-CR%2015-0810.pdf
Click HERE to read my recent blog article touching on restitution.
Gordon Thompson
For more information about Arizona dui and criminal law issues please contact Gordon Thompson who has used his experience to write a blog on topics of interest. You can also chat with Gordon about your specific questions. Website: https://GordonThompsonAttorney.net
