State v. Horner, 21381-4-I
| Decision Date | 10 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 21381-4-I,21381-4-I |
| Citation | 53 Wn.App. 806,770 P.2d 1056 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Maurice Develle HORNER, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Lenell Nussbaum, Washington Appellate Defender, Seattle, for Maurice D. Horner.
Greg R. Hubbard, Deputy Pros. Atty., King County Juvenile Div., Seattle, for State of Wash.
Maurice D. Horner, a juvenile, pled guilty to malicious mischief in the third degree for breaking a car window. The State requested that Horner be ordered to pay restitution of $130.02. Horner appeals from the trial court's order requiring him to pay $100 restitution to his victim.
The victim's actual out-of-pocket expense was $40.02 for a new window. He replaced the damaged window himself, and the remaining $90 of the $130.02 requested was recompense for his labor. The $130.02 request was based on an estimate of the cost of replacement obtained by the victim from a professional auto repair business.
Appellate review of an order of restitution under the Juvenile Justice Act is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the restitution. State v. Morse, 45 Wash.App. 197, 199, 723 P.2d 1209 (1986). A trial court abuses its discretion if it orders restitution not authorized by statute. Morse, 45 Wash.App. at 199, 723 P.2d 1209.
The Juvenile Justice Act defines restitution as follows:
"Restitution" means financial reimbursement by the offender to the victim, and shall be limited to easily ascertainable damages for injury to or loss of property, actual expenses incurred for medical treatment for physical injury to persons, and lost wages resulting from physical injury....
RCW 13.40.020(17). Thus, medical expenses must be "actually incurred" before they can be included in an order of restitution, while damages for injury to or loss of property need only be "easily ascertainable."
The purposes of the Juvenile Justice Act, RCW Ch. 13.40, include making the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior and providing for restitution to victims of crime. RCW 13.40.010(2)(c) and (h). Restitution is primarily a rehabilitative tool. State v. Barr, 99 Wash.2d 75, 78-79, 658 P.2d 1247 (1983). It is clear that a victim's labor may be included in an order of restitution for injury to property. The nature of the damage caused by the offense remains the same regardless of who makes the repairs, and denying restitution to victims who make their own repairs would defeat the statutory purpose of making offenders accountable for their actions.
The question before us is whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court's order that Horner pay restitution for his victim's labor. We decide this question by determining whether the estimate submitted by the State rendered the value of the victim's labor "easily ascertainable." See RCW 13.40.020(17).
Horner contends that the fair market value of a professional's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hamblin
...that the evidence of the actual amount paid for repairs is not determinative. The same result was reached in State v. Horner, 53 Wash.App. 806, 807, 770 P.2d 1056 (1989), where the defendant pleaded guilty of malicious mischief for breaking the complainant's car window. The complainant obta......
-
State v. Mabry, No. 21551-2-III (WA 12/16/2004)
...basis for establishing the loss and does not subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.' State v. Horner, 53 Wn. App. 806, 808, 770 P.2d 1056 (1989). In short, once the fact of damage is established, the precise amount does not have to be shown by mathematical certainty. I......
-
State v. D.K.J., No. 34779-2-II consolidated with (Wash. App. 11/20/2007)
...restitution orders under the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (JJA), chapter 13.40 RCW, for an abuse of discretion. State v. Horner, 53 Wn. App. 806, 807, 770 P.2d 1056 (1989); State v. Morse, 45 Wn. App. 197, 199, 723 P.2d 1209 (1986). The trial court abuses its discretion when it bases its de......
-
State v. L.L.L., 43771-6-II
... ... State v. S.T., 139 Wn.App. 915, 918, 163 P.3d 796 ... (2007); State v. Horner, 53 Wn.App. 806, 807, 770 ... P.2d 1056 (1989). A trial court abuses its discretion if its ... decision is manifestly unreasonable or ... ...