People v. Henson
2013 COA 36
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Henson stole the victim’s purse containing a grandmother’s 1.5 carat European cut diamond ring; the victim investigated after police considered her case not a priority.
- The ring was sold to a jeweler, who sent it to a cutter to change the diamond cut and remove a chip, resulting in an unfinished ring with the diamond now ~0.2 carats smaller.
- Henson pled guilty to theft and received a three-year deferred judgment; the district court ordered restitution of $8,628.31 ($2,925 lost wages, $4,425.45 for the ring).
- The victim recovered the ring but it was in a damaged, altered state when retrieved.
- Henson appealed arguing errors in the restitution for lost wages and the ring; the appellate court affirmed as to lost wages but reversed as to the ring’s restitution.
- The remand directs recalculation of the ring restitution using replacement value, repair costs, and the diminished value of the returned ring consistent with the opinion’s framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lost wages restitution was proper. | Henson argues the lost wages award was not supported by evidence. | People contends the award is supported by record evidence of six and a half days of investigation. | Affirmed: lost wages award supported by record. |
| Whether restitution for the diamond ring was proper. | Henson challenges the ring value used in restitution. | People defended the calculation starting from replacement value and subtracting the returned ring’s value. | Reversed: ring restitution remanded for recalculation. |
| How to value the returned ring for restitution. | Value based on what the jeweler paid does not reflect current condition or market value. | Value may reflect buyer’s purchase price and market for the altered ring. | Remanded with instructions to recalculate using replacement value plus repair costs minus value of returned ring. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stafford, 93 P.3d 572 (Colo.App.2004) (defines replacement value and recoverable repair costs in restitution)
- People v. Bryant, 122 P.3d 1026 (Colo.App.2005) (lost wages concept and proximate causation in restitution)
- People v. McCoy, 764 P.2d 1171 (Colo.1988) (stolen goods market value not determinative in restitution)
- Mercado v. Sheriff, 587 P.2d 1329 (Nev.1978) (thief may be compelled to sell stolen property below market value)
- United States v. Butler, 694 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir.2012) (context on fair market value for damaged property)