In Re J.U., 384 P.3d 839

Background

In August 2015 J.U. and two other students phoned two Douglas schools from Mexico, leaving recorded threats of a “terrorist attack” and directing schools to close; calls prompted evacuations, searches, and an investigation.
J.U. was adjudicated delinquent on multiple counts, including eight counts of false reporting under A.R.S. § 13-2907(A)(1) and (A)(3) for calls made August 26–27.
At a combined restitution/disposition hearing DPD sought $5,957.21 under § 13-2907 for emergency response and investigative expenses (including regular time, overtime, and officer travel to court); schools received reduced awards which J.U. did not challenge on appeal.
J.U. argued § 13-2907 does not cover investigative costs incurred after the emergency ended, and asked to reduce the award by $5,061.63 (regular time, overtime, and mileage); he objected below only to relevance of travel-to-court mileage during direct examination and otherwise submitted the matter.
The juvenile court awarded the full $5,957.21 under § 13-2907 and separately ordered $570 for officers’ mileage to attend court under general restitution statutes.
On appeal the court affirmed adjudication and most restitution but vacated the $570 mileage award for officers traveling to court as not compensable under the restitution rules for routine prosecutorial attendance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of § 13-2907: whether statute limits recoverable costs to immediate emergency-response only	J.U.: statute should be strictly construed to allow only direct costs of immediate response; investigative costs after emergency are too attenuated	State: § 13-2907 expressly authorizes recovery for both emergency response and investigation expenses; no temporal limitation	Held: § 13-2907 covers reasonable costs "incident to" emergency response or investigation; court affirmed award for DPD investigative/response costs through Sept. 3, 2015
Preservation of argument that later investigative costs are unrecoverable	J.U.: preserved objection and raised on appeal	State: J.U. largely failed to preserve claim below; objection cited relevance only and counsel later submitted; forfeited except for fundamental error	Held: forfeiture applies; only fundamental error review available, but interpretation of § 13-2907 supported the award so no relief granted
Basis for $570 mileage: whether award was proper under § 13-2907	J.U.: mileage for officers to attend court is prosecutorial/routine and not tied to emergency or investigation; not recoverable under § 13-2907	State: court awarded mileage under general restitution statutes (A.R.S. §§ 13-105(16), 13-603(C)), not § 13-2907	Held: court erred in awarding $570 mileage; travel to testify is a routine prosecutorial cost and not compensable here; $570 vacated
Whether law enforcement agency is a victim entitled to restitution	J.U.: challenges idea DPD is a "victim" for restitution	State: DPD acted as the official agency compelled to respond and is a victim under statute and restitution law	Held: DPD is a victim for purposes of § 13-2907 and general restitution; agency may recover eligible emergency/ investigative expenses

Key Cases Cited

In re Andrew C., 215 Ariz. 366 (App. 2007) (standard for viewing evidence in juvenile appeals)
In re James P., 214 Ariz. 420 (App. 2007) (standard for appellate review of juvenile adjudication)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (forfeiture and fundamental error doctrine)
State v. Guilliams, 208 Ariz. 48 (App. 2004) (limits on restitution for governmental victims and routine costs)
State v. Whitney, 151 Ariz. 113 (App. 1985) (restitution orders unsupported by statute are fundamental error)
In re Casey G., 223 Ariz. 519 (App. 2010) (de novo statutory interpretation in juvenile restitution context)
State v. Madrid, 207 Ariz. 296 (App. 2004) (travel expenses to attend trial can be economic losses for restitution)
State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (2002) (criteria for restitution applicability)