2018 COA 48
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Anthony Wayne Henry was convicted by a jury of third-degree assault for striking a victim who suffered facial and throat bruising.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed jail time and ordered $900 restitution, including $230 to reimburse a crime victim compensation board for lost wages it paid the victim.
- The compensation board director testified about the board's lost-wage procedures (victim and employer forms, calculation method, two-week cap, 15% reduction) and that the board had followed its procedures; the board’s file was confidential and not produced.
- Defendant objected, arguing there was no evidence tying the $230 lost-wage payment to his conduct and asked for an in camera review of the board’s records; the court denied full disclosure but held a hearing and credited the director’s testimony.
- The trial court relied on Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(10)(a), which creates a presumption that amounts paid by a compensation board are a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct; defendant did not present evidence to rebut that presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18-1.3-603(10)(a) establishes a presumption binding on the court | Prosecution: statute creates a presumption that board payments are direct result of criminal conduct, shifting burden to defendant | Henry: board payment alone is insufficient; prosecution must prove proximate causation for lost wages | Court: § 18-1.3-603(10)(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that the board’s payment was a direct result of the crime; defendant must rebut it |
| Whether record supported $230 restitution for lost wages | Prosecution: board’s list and director’s testimony showing procedures followed suffice under rebuttable presumption | Henry: no evidence showing victim missed work because of the assault or amount of time missed | Court: evidence (board payment, director’s credible testimony, victim’s trial statement) plus presumption satisfied causation; defendant did not rebut |
| Whether trial court should have conducted in camera review of board records | Prosecution: not necessary because defendant failed to present non-speculative hypothesis to rebut presumption | Henry: in camera review required to test accuracy and causation of the $230 claim | Court: denied; defendant failed to meet statutory threshold for non-speculative evidentiary hypothesis warranting in camera review |
| Whether admitting new arguments on rehearing is permissible | N/A | Henry: raised new statutory and due process arguments in petition for rehearing | Court: declined to consider new contentions raised first in petition for rehearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Krueger v. Ary, 205 P.3d 1150 (Colo. 2009) (describing effect of a rebuttable presumption and burden-shifting)
- People v. Hoskin, 380 P.3d 130 (Colo. 2016) (statutory presumption shifts burden of going forward with evidence)
- People v. Bohn, 381 P.3d 334 (Colo. App. 2015) (standard of review for restitution and prior treatment of compensation-board payments)
- People v. Martinez, 166 P.3d 223 (Colo. App. 2007) (prosecution bears burden to prove proximate cause for restitution)
- People v. Rivera, 250 P.3d 1272 (Colo. App. 2010) (definition of proximate cause in restitution context)