People v. Corbin
312 Mich. App. 352
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Jeffry Corbin sexually abused two boys, Shane and Austin, between 1995–2005; he pleaded guilty to crimes involving Shane and admitted abuse of Austin, but the Austin charge was dismissed as time-barred.
- The trial court sentenced Corbin to prison and held a restitution hearing, awarding Austin $276,800 and Shane $276,985 (including large awards for future counseling, inpatient treatment, medications, and lost wages).
- Victims presented testimony from a licensed clinical social worker (Mark McGonigle) estimating long-term therapy needs and costs (roughly $14,000–18,000/year for 8–10 years, plus inpatient admissions and medication costs); the expert admitted his figures were generalized averages, not projections specific to Shane.
- The prosecutor sought restitution under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA), MCL 780.766, which authorizes payment of “reasonably determined” future medical/psychological costs; the general restitution statute, MCL 769.1a, authorizes only actual medical expenses.
- On appeal (after Supreme Court remand), the Court of Appeals vacated most of the restitution award: it held Austin cannot receive restitution because his abuse did not “give rise to” the conviction, and Shane’s large awards for future therapy, medications, psychiatric services, and lost wages were unsupported and speculative. The court left intact Shane’s recorded past therapy expense ($1,785) and remanded for further proceedings if the prosecution wishes to present additional proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution for victim (Austin) whose allegations were dismissed/time‑barred | CVRA allows restitution to any victim of defendant’s course of conduct | Restitution may be based only on conduct that "gives rise to" the conviction | Vacated Austin’s restitution: per People v McKinley, restitution limited to victims of conduct that gave rise to the conviction; uncharged/time‑barred conduct cannot support restitution. |
| Future psychological treatment and related costs for convicted‑victim (Shane) | Expert testimony estimating long‑term care costs supports reasonable expectation of future expenses under CVRA | Expert’s estimates were generalized averages and speculative; restitution must be causally linked and reasonably certain | Vacated future therapy/medication/psychiatric awards: CVRA permits reasonably determined future costs, but here evidence was too speculative and not specifically causally tied to Shane. Only past therapy ($1,785) remanded as awardable. |
| "Lost wages" award for Shane | Father’s testimony about lost summer job offers justifies after‑tax income loss award under CVRA | No evidence of actual after‑tax income loss, speculative duration and amount; court didn’t calculate after‑tax loss or causal nexus | Vacated lost‑wages award: statute compensates actual after‑tax income loss caused by the crime; evidence here did not establish such loss with reasonable certainty. |
| Sixth Amendment jury factfinding challenge to restitution amount | Restitution is punitive; under Apprendi/Alleyne, facts increasing punishment must be found by a jury | Restitution is compensatory/limited and many courts permit judicial factfinding on amount; Apprendi line does not require jury for restitution amounts | Rejected: court declined to adopt defendant’s novel Sixth Amendment claim; existing precedent permits judicial determination of restitution amounts. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v McKinley, 496 Mich 410 (Mich. 2014) (statute limits restitution to victims of the defendant’s conduct that "gives rise to" the conviction)
- People v Gahan, 456 Mich 264 (Mich. 1997) (prior precedent overruled by McKinley regarding restitution scope)
- People v Heil, 79 Mich App 739 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977) (earlier rule limiting restitution to losses "easily ascertained and measured")
- People v Laidler, 491 Mich 339 (Mich. 2012) (discussion of factual and proximate causation principles)
- Paroline v United States, 134 S Ct 1710 (U.S. 2014) (proximate‑cause analysis for restitution in sexual‑abuse context)
- Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (jury factfinding and facts increasing punishment)
- Southern Union Co. v United States, 132 S Ct 2344 (U.S. 2012) (Apprendi principle applied to criminal fines)
- Alleyne v United States, 133 S Ct 2151 (U.S. 2013) (further extension of Apprendi to facts increasing mandatory minimums)