Commonwealth v. Zrncic
167 A.3d 149
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- In 2008, Michael Zrncic engaged in a sexual relationship with a 15‑year‑old student; police seized the victim’s laptop during the investigation.
- Zrncic pled guilty in 2009 to one consolidated count of Aggravated Indecent Assault; the Commonwealth nolle prossed other charges, including Unlawful Contact with a Minor.
- The laptop allegedly contained evidence supporting the Unlawful Contact charge but did not contain evidence of the Aggravated Indecent Assault conviction.
- After litigation and remands, the trial court (Aug. 31, 2016) ordered restitution: $1,527.26 to Victims Compensation Assistance Program (undisputed) and $1,038.77 to the victim’s mother for replacing the seized laptop.
- Zrncic appealed the laptop replacement restitution, arguing no direct nexus between that loss and the crime of conviction; the Superior Court reviewed the restitution question de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution for the replacement laptop may be ordered when laptop evidence related only to a dismissed charge | Restitution improper: laptop loss does not flow from the crime of conviction (Aggravated Indecent Assault) | Trial court: laptop was seized as evidence of related sexual misconduct; allowing restitution prevents defendant from benefiting twice from plea | Vacated restitution to mother ($1,038.77); restitution must have a direct nexus to the crime of conviction |
| Whether replacement was recoverable when laptop wasn’t damaged and mother didn’t demand its return from police | Argued restitution not authorized because no damage and no demand for return | Trial court treated replacement cost as victim’s loss stemming from investigation | Court rejected this and tied admissibility to nexus to convicted offense |
| Whether costs for antivirus/extended maintenance on replacement laptop were recoverable | Argued ancillary software/maintenance costs not recoverable absent nexus to convicted offense | Trial court included such costs as part of replacement expense | Court’s vacatur of laptop restitution implies ancillary costs also improper without nexus |
| Whether defendant can be ordered to make restitution for conduct underlying dismissed charges | Argued restitution may not be imposed for unproven/dismissed conduct | Trial court relied on plea bargain context and perceived benefit to defendant | Court held restitution may only flow from crimes of which defendant was convicted; cannot base restitution on dismissed/unproven conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harner, 617 A.2d 702 (Pa. 1992) (restitution is statutory; courts lack authority to order it absent legislative authorization)
- Commonwealth v. Barger, 956 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 2008) (restitution must have a direct nexus to the crime of conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 956 A.2d 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (restitution review is a pure question of law subject to de novo review)
- Commonwealth v. Zrncic, 131 A.3d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural history: defendant entitled to counsel at restitution hearing)