State v. Mooers
| Decision Date | 26 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 20140170-CA,20140170-CA |
| Citation | 424 P.3d 1126 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Ryan MOOERS, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Nathalie S. Skibine and Heather J. Chesnut, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City and Tera J. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Opinion
¶1 Ryan Mooers was charged with burglary and theft after a family returned from vacation to find that their house had been broken into and jewelry and coins stolen. Mooers entered a plea in abeyance to the theft charge, and the State dropped the burglary charge. As part of his plea in abeyance, among other conditions, Mooers was to pay restitution for the stolen items and for damage to the family’s property that resulted from the criminal activity. He appeals the restitution order only with respect to the cost of installing security bars on the bedroom window used to enter the house, arguing that because the window did not have security bars prior to the burglary, the bars "are not economic injury or pecuniary damage, but a security improvement the victims decided to make to their house."1 We agree with Mooers that the expense of security bars is not a pecuniary damage suffered by the family and vacate the portion of the restitution order addressing the installation costs.
¶2 The family’s house was burglarized in November 2012.2 The family’s daughter (Daughter) had a basement bedroom. Its window was broken, and "there was glass everywhere," which damaged the carpet. "[A]pproximately $3,200 of jewelry and coins" were stolen. A detective checked the records of pawn stores and found that Mooers "had pawned jewelry [in November 2012] and that the descriptions appeared to match jewelry descriptions provided by" the mother (Mother). Mother "went to the pawn shop, examined what [Mooers] had pawned, identified it as her property and was able to purchase it back."
¶3 Following the burglary, Daughter no longer felt safe in her bedroom and "wouldn’t go to the basement by herself." She would not sleep in her bedroom and instead "slept on the couch." Mother accompanied her whenever Daughter went to the basement to retrieve her clothes or to do her laundry. One month after the burglary, Mother and her husband (Father) decided to install security bars in Daughter’s bedroom window to "[g]ive her security." After the bars were installed, Daughter returned to sleeping in her bedroom.
¶4 Daughter believed that a friend of hers (Friend) might have been a suspect, as Friend had stolen from her in the past. Friend "claimed that she had nothing to do with the burglary and suggested that maybe ... [Mooers] might be involved." As the investigation continued, other individuals came forward to report that Mooers and Friend had broken into the family’s house and "[came] out carrying a bunch of stuff" including "jewelry and coins." In the declaration of probable cause, a detective claimed that, when interviewed, Mooers "admitted that he and [Friend] broke into the house, stole jewelry and that he pawned it."
¶5 The State charged Mooers with burglary, a second degree felony, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-202 (LexisNexis 2017),3 and theft, a third degree felony, see id. § 76-6-404. As the result of a plea agreement, Mooers agreed to plead guilty to theft, attend a theft class, and pay restitution to the family. In exchange, the State agreed to drop the burglary charge. The district court accepted Mooers’s plea and held it in abeyance for eighteen months. The court "[gave] the State 90 days to determine the restitution."
¶6 The State filed a motion for restitution in the amount of $5,760.50—$4,660.50 to cover the "value of stolen items, window repair, and carpet replacement," and $1,100 for "the cost of placing bars on the window used to access the stolen items." The court set a restitution hearing at which Daughter and Mother testified about why the security bars were installed on Daughter’s bedroom window. Following the hearing, "the court continued the matter for briefing," and the State argued in its brief that, based on the "modified but for" test4 for determining whether restitution is appropriate, the need for these security bars would not have been necessary if the burglary had not occurred; Mooers admitted to aiding others into the house; and the family paid the down payment for the security bars within weeks of the burglary.
¶7 Mooers objected to the State’s motion, arguing that the $1,100 cost for the security bars was not pecuniary damages but were instead "voluntary expense[s] incurred by the ... family after the theft had taken place." He also argued that, "while the theft may have influenced the family’s decision to incur this expense, this does not make it ‘pecuniary damages’ resulting from Mr. Mooers’s ‘criminal activity.’ " (Quoting Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201(4)(a) (LexisNexis 2017).) In addition, he argued that because he "did not plead guilty to burglary[,] he is not responsible for the cost of installing the security bars."
¶8 The district court concluded that restitution for the cost of installing the security bars on the bedroom window was appropriate. It found that Daughter’s fear "was a direct result of the break-in for which [Mooers] admitted criminal responsibility," even though he did not plead guilty to burglary. Because the family "would not have paid to install security bars except for the criminal conduct for which [Mooers] accepted responsibility," and because the decision to install the bars was not factually or temporally attenuated from the criminal conduct, the court ordered Mooers to pay the entire restitution amount requested by the State. Mooers appeals.
¶9 Mooers contends the district court exceeded its discretion in ordering restitution for installing security bars on Daughter’s bedroom window because they "are not an economic injury or pecuniary damage," as required by Utah Code section 77-38a-302, but they are instead "a security improvement" to the house. We "will not disturb a [district] court’s restitution order unless it exceeds that prescribed by law or [the court] otherwise abused its discretion." State v. Corbitt , 2003 UT App 417, ¶ 6, 82 P.3d 211 (quotation simplified).
¶10 "When a defendant enters into a plea disposition or is convicted of criminal activity that has resulted in pecuniary damages, ... the court shall order that the defendant make restitution to victims of crime ..., or for conduct for which the defendant has agreed to make restitution as part of a plea disposition." Utah Code Ann. § 77-38a-302 (LexisNexis 2017) ; see also id. § 76-3-201(4)(a). Pecuniary damages are "all demonstrable economic injur[ies], whether or not yet incurred ... arising out of the facts or events constituting the defendant’s criminal activities." Id. § 77-38a-102(6) (LexisNexis 2017). "By statute, [pecuniary] damages include ‘the fair market value of property taken, destroyed, broken, or otherwise harmed,’ " but they exclude " ‘punitive or exemplary damages and pain and suffering.’ " State v. Brown , 2014 UT 48, ¶ 22, 342 P.3d 239 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 77-38a-102(6) ).
¶11 In this case, we must determine whether, under the plain language of Utah Code section 77-38a-102(6), security bars installed after a burglary and theft are a pecuniary damage for purposes of restitution. We conclude that they are not.
¶12 "When interpreting statutes, we first look to the plain language of the statute and give effect to that language unless it is ambiguous." State v. Jeffries , 2009 UT 57, ¶ 7, 217 P.3d 265. The plain language of Utah Code section 77-38a-102(6) is not ambiguous. It provides that pecuniary damages, or "demonstrable economic injury[,] ... includes the fair market value of property taken, destroyed, broken, or otherwise harmed." Utah Code Ann. § 77-38a-102(6). It also explicitly excludes "punitive or exemplary damages and pain and suffering."5
¶13 Black’s Law Dictionary defines "pecuniary" as " relating to, or consisting of money," Pecuniary , Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), and "damages" as "[m]oney claimed by, or ordered to be paid to, a person as compensation for loss or injury,"Damages , Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). "[L]oss" is defined as "the act or fact of losing," Loss , Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1968), as well as "the disappearance or diminution of value," Loss , Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). And "injury" is defined as "[a]ny harm or damage." Injury , Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
¶14 Here, Daughter’s bedroom window did not have security bars on it prior to the burglary and theft. Therefore no security bars were damaged when the bedroom window was broken to enter the house and commit the crimes. Without damage, loss, harm, or an economic injury to property, a court cannot order restitution to compensate the victim. See Brown , 2014 UT 48, ¶ 22, 342 P.3d 239.
¶15 Contrary to the State’s argument that this is a "mental health care ... devi[ce]" that was "demonstrably economic and objectively verifiable" by the receipts, the record does not reflect that family installed the security bars based on a mental health professional’s advice or prescription. Instead, Mother and Father determined that it would be best to install the bars as additional security and to give Daughter a sense of safety. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38a-302(5)(b)(ii) (). Any conclusion that the family could recover restitution for the security bars as a health care related device without evidence that a health care professional prescribed or advised the use of the security bars would allow victims to circumvent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Brocksmith, 20160680-CA
-
State v. Chadwick
...aspect of that work, absent evidence that each aspect of that work was poorly done.3 See State v. Mooers , 2018 UT App 74, ¶¶ 15–16, 424 P.3d 1126 (determining that the court abused its discretion in awarding restitution for purchases made by the victims without evidence that the purchases ......