2015 COA 178
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- On March 19, 2012, Bohn pushed his neighbor down stairs during an altercation, fracturing the neighbor's foot; Bohn pleaded guilty to second- and third-degree assault and received a deferred judgment and probation.
- The Crime Victim Compensation Board (CVCB) paid the neighbor $3,185 for medical bills and $6,800 for lost wages (two payments: $2,550 covering 3 weeks, then $4,250 covering 5 additional weeks).
- The prosecution sought restitution of $9,985 (later reflected as $9,792.34 including medical) to reimburse the CVCB; the defense contested restitution for lost wages that were partly for anticipated future missed work.
- At an eleven-month-later restitution hearing the court reviewed CVCB materials, heard evidence (employer lost-wage form and orthopedic letter), and found the prosecution proved the wage losses by a preponderance.
- The district court ordered full reimbursement to the CVCB for the paid lost wages; Bohn appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion and violated due process by ordering restitution for wages that had, at payment time, included future expected losses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may order restitution to reimburse a CVCB for lost-wage payments that, at the time the CVCB paid, covered some future-expected wages | CVCB is the victim for restitution purposes; payment by the CVCB supports reimbursement and the Act permits payment for loss of earnings | Restitution may not be ordered for wages that were, at CVCB payment time, expected to be lost in the future (and defendant argued claimant never proved actual time missed) | Court affirmed: restitution to reimburse CVCB is permitted so long as the wages were for work actually missed before the restitution order was entered |
| Whether payment by the CVCB alone satisfies the prosecution's burden to prove the underlying wage loss and causation | CVCB payment indicates a compensable loss and supports restitution request | CVCB payment is not dispositive; prosecution must still prove loss and proximate causation | Court held CVCB payment does not automatically establish restitution entitlement, but here submitted employer and medical evidence met the preponderance standard |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bryant, 122 P.3d 1026 (Colo. App. 2005) (defines "future earnings" as wages lost after restitution is imposed)
- People in Interest of K.M., 232 P.3d 310 (Colo. App. 2010) (payment by CVCB does not alone establish right to restitution)
- People v. Rivera, 250 P.3d 1272 (Colo. App. 2010) (affirming restitution where CVCB paid claim and evidence supported loss)
- Denver Post Corp. v. Ritter, 255 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2011) (statutory interpretation requires giving consistent and sensible effect to all parts of a statutory scheme)