Carlin Iltzsch v. State of Indiana
981 N.E.2d 55
Ind.2013Background
- Carlin Iltzsch convicted after bench trial of burglary, a class B felony, and adjudicated an habitual offender; sentenced to 22 years and ordered restitution of $711.95.
- The restitution covered the victim’s television and antique record collection; Victim Impact Statement claimed about $800 in loss plus $411.95 for a TV replacement.
- Victim testified the TV was moved and found on the kitchen floor; a photo showed the TV on its face-down position, damage not fully depicted.
- At restitution hearing, State sought $711.95 based on Victim Impact Statement; defense objected to civil restitution while maintaining innocence.
- Court over objection ordered civil restitution of $711.95 to the victim to cover damaged property and lost items.
- Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order for lack of sufficient evidence; case was transferred to this Court for potential remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand for new restitution hearing proper? | Iltzsch | Iltzsch | Yes; remand permitted to allow additional evidence. |
| Whether remand violates double jeopardy principles? | State could present evidence anew | Remand would violate double jeopardy | Dissent argues against remand on double jeopardy grounds; majority permits remand. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to support $711.95 restitution? | State based on Victim Impact Statement | Insufficient evidence of loss | Court remands for additional evidence to determine proper amount. |
| What is the appropriate procedural posture after insufficient evidence at restitution hearing? | Remand is acceptable to fix evidentiary gaps | Prefer not to remand | Remand approved with opportunity to present further evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. State, 831 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (restitution remand contemplated in limited circumstances)
- Clausen v. State, 622 N.E.2d 925 (Ind.1993) (remand with hearing to determine costs; evidentiary gaps may require new hearing)
- Clausen v. State, 612 N.E.2d 147 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (restitution remand approach adopted in part)
- J.H. v. State, 950 N.E.2d 731 (Ind.Ct. App.2011) (remanding for new restitution hearing when evidence insufficient)
- Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770 (Ind.2008) (restitution's dual aims: vindicate society and compensate victim)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (double jeopardy concerns with second opportunity to prove facts)