In Re Cheyenne H., 1 CA-JV 17-0259

In Nov. 2015 Cheyenne followed another juvenile into the victim’s garage and punched the victim, causing a maxillary sinus fracture and damaged/chipped teeth.
Juvenile court adjudicated Cheyenne delinquent of aggravated assault, first-degree criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct.
Victim submitted a Verified Victim Statement of Financial Loss and testified about inability to speak, difficulty brushing teeth, and delayed dental treatment.
Dentist initially declined immediate treatment due to instability; months later provided a comprehensive estimate of $8,220.09 for necessary dental work.
Juvenile court ordered Cheyenne to pay $8,220.09 in restitution; Cheyenne appealed arguing restitution included damages not proven to result directly from her conduct.
Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding restitution supported by a preponderance of the evidence and was within the court’s discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt	State: restitution need not meet criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard; preponderance suffices	Cheyenne: restitution included items not shown to be direct result of her conduct	Court: restitution requires preponderance; sufficient evidence showed direct causal link; affirmed
Standard for restitution proof	State: restitution is part of sentencing; lesser burden applies	Cheyenne: challenged causal connection between assault and full dental estimate	Court: applies preponderance and "but for"/direct-result analysis; evidence supported award
Causation test for economic loss	State: economic losses recoverable if direct result of offense	Cheyenne: some procedures on estimate not itemized to specific teeth so may be consequential	Court: victim testimony and dentist estimate showed treatments were necessary to correct injury; losses directly attributable
Scope of trial court's discretion in setting restitution amount	State: court may set amount according to case facts to remediate economic loss	Cheyenne: argued court abused discretion by ordering full estimate amount	Court: no abuse of discretion; amount within sentencing function and supported by record

In re Julio L., 197 Ariz. 1 (discussing standard for sustaining adjudication) (court views evidence in light most favorable to sustaining adjudication)
In re Andrew C., 215 Ariz. 366 (applying economic loss test for restitution) (restitution based on facts of the case)
State v. Reynolds, 171 Ariz. 678 (restitution not required to be proven beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Fancher, 169 Ariz. 266 (lesser burden of proof applies for restitution)
In re Stephanie B., 204 Ariz. 466 (restitution burden is preponderance of the evidence)
In re Ryan A., 202 Ariz. 19 (trial court has discretion to set restitution to remediate economic loss)
State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (economic-loss test for restitution in criminal cases)
State v. Blanton, 173 Ariz. 517 (direct-result or "but for" analysis for causation in restitution)
State v. Foy, 176 Ariz. 166 (similar guidance on causation and restitution)