In re Cody H.
156 A.3d 823
| Md. | 2017Background
- Teen defendant Cody H. punched 16-year-old Zachary F., fracturing his jaw; Zachary underwent surgery and missed weeks of school.
- Zachary had a scheduled work-study placement at Roseda Farm (≈20 hrs/week for ≈40 weeks at $8/hr); he could not work because farm machinery vibrations would disrupt jaw healing.
- At disposition the magistrate awarded medical-expense restitution (~$1,489.61) but declined lost-earnings ($6,400) as speculative; the State filed exceptions.
- On exceptions, the juvenile court judge awarded $5,000 for lost earnings for the period from injury (Sept 2014) through the magistrate hearing (Apr 29, 2015), relying on testimonial evidence and a letter from Roseda Farm confirming approximate hours/weeks/pay.
- Cody appealed, arguing (1) § 11-603 does not permit restitution for future earnings and (2) the evidence was not competent to support the lost-earnings award. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cody) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 11-603 permits restitution for future loss of earnings | Statute uses past tense; future-earnings restitution is a civil remedy and speculative | Statute’s plain language is not limited to past losses; future losses are recoverable if not speculative | Statute does not expressly bar future lost-earnings awards; future awards are permissible if not speculative and supported by competent evidence |
| Whether the award here was for "future" earnings | The $5,000 covered future earnings beyond the hearing and thus was impermissible/speculative | The awarded $5,000 covered wages already lost up to the magistrate hearing; judge further reduced amount for uncertainty | Award was for past loss (injury to hearing date), not future earnings beyond the restitution hearing; thus not an impermissible future award |
| Whether evidence supporting lost-earnings was competent | Letter gave only approximate hours/weeks; testimony insufficient to prove causal link and precise amount | Testimony + employer letter corroborated schedule, hours, rate, and inability to work; juvenile proceedings permit relaxed evidentiary rules | Competent evidence (testimony corroborated by employer letter) supported entitlement and amount by preponderance; approximations are acceptable if reasonably reliable |
| Whether the award was speculative or excessive | Calculation was speculative (possible firing, quitting, etc.); figures not precise | Restitution need not be micrometrically precise; court may award reasonable estimate and even reduce it for fairness | Award was not speculative: loss had already occurred through the hearing date, figures were reasonably certain, and judge adjusted the amount downward for conservatism |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver v. State, 420 Md. 415 (recognizing abuse-of-discretion review for restitution orders)
- Goff v. State, 387 Md. 327 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- McDaniel v. State, 205 Md. App. 551 (restitution may cover future-incurred expenses if not speculative; estimates can be sufficient)
- In re John M., 129 Md. App. 165 (restitution for uncertain future counseling expenses was improper)
- Stachowski, 440 Md. 504 (restating restitution as a criminal sanction and limits on awards)